Bret Hart

[Frankensteiner]

I have too many blind spots for a comprehensive GOAT list but I have not seen any US guys who I would say are better than Bret.

 

One of the things I love about him is just how he carries himself; there’s never a disconnect between his character and the way he approaches a match in-ring. I also love his serious approach as I can’t think of too many instances of bullshit comedy or stooging spots (though I’m sure there’s probably some examples) that I generally dislike with other guys. Everything he does looks real, not in a shoot-style sort of way, but in the context of US pro-wrestling. Of course his storytelling and the way he builds a match is probably what sets him apart for me.

 

The idea that he doesn’t have a list of week-to-week TV matches doesn’t bother me at all. That’s just not how the WWF operated. Does Volk Han get downgraded because he wasn’t a great TV worker? Regardless, I think there’s enough matches from CHV, TV, and handhelds to show Bret wasn’t only a PPV worker. I suspect that if we took a look at a list of all the taped Steamboat or Arn matches in the early 90’s, the percentage of keepers wouldn’t be that different from a list of keepers from all of Bret’s taped matches during his prime. Plus, even if someone wants to make a case that X guys have more good matches because of working weekly TV, I don’t think there’s anyone who can rival Bret in the volume of great matches.

[ohtani's jacket]

Bret's storytelling or psychology, whatever you want to call it, is really overrated. Whoever said he worked underneath as the underdog all the time was right on the money.

[Frankensteiner]

Bret's storytelling or psychology, whatever you want to call it, is really overrated. Whoever said he worked underneath as the underdog all the time was right on the money.

I probably shouldn't take the bait but that is a curious statement at best. Just looking at his 1994, I can think of only two instances when he worked as an underdog (vs. Yokozuna, Diesel).

[Graham Crackers]

I have too many blind spots for a comprehensive GOAT list but I have not seen any US guys who I would say are better than Bret.

 

One of the things I love about him is just how he carries himself; there’s never a disconnect between his character and the way he approaches a match in-ring. I also love his serious approach as I can’t think of too many instances of bullshit comedy or stooging spots (though I’m sure there’s probably some examples) that I generally dislike with other guys. Everything he does looks real, not in a shoot-style sort of way, but in the context of US pro-wrestling. Of course his storytelling and the way he builds a match is probably what sets him apart for me.

 

The idea that he doesn’t have a list of week-to-week TV matches doesn’t bother me at all. That’s just not how the WWF operated. Does Volk Han get downgraded because he wasn’t a great TV worker? Regardless, I think there’s enough matches from CHV, TV, and handhelds to show Bret wasn’t only a PPV worker. I suspect that if we took a look at a list of all the taped Steamboat or Arn matches in the early 90’s, the percentage of keepers wouldn’t be that different from a list of keepers from all of Bret’s taped matches during his prime. Plus, even if someone wants to make a case that X guys have more good matches because of working weekly TV, I don’t think there’s anyone who can rival Bret in the volume of great matches.

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.

[Johnny Sorrow]

The other little bit of context to consider there is that Shawn has had 10 years of the WWE ramming home the message of him as the best ever wrestler, Mr. Wrestlemania and all that crap.

This is very, very true. Shawn's gimmick is "great wrestler" and it's a narrative the WWE has gone out of their way to push. Shawn is a guy who is important to the history of the promotion, but nowhere near as important as you would think based on the way the hype machine presents him.

 

Isn't the term they use "The Greatest In Ring Performer Of All Time"? or something like that? I always took that as them saying HBK was the best all-around performer/ entertainer, not "best wrestler."

[Grimmas]

I really love the Survivor Series match with Austin. A whole lot. I don't know if the build to the match and finish was supposed to work the way I have always thought it worked in my head but I don't care. It's a match that works for me on a level that very few WWE/F matches in history ever have. I'm not sure it's my number one WWE match in history, but I had it one in the SC poll a few years back and I would consider it for that spot if I were to ever do such a thing again. Everyone talks about the Mania match, but I think SS is a better match and I think the build to the match is really what put over Austin as much as anything. WM 13 was just the last kick over the edge.

This is so spot on and I would have the Survivor Series match as the best in WWF history. I have watched that match more than any other and I still go back to it often.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I'll tell you this, Bret's book is by far the most "re-readable" and my absolute favorite of any of the wrestling books I've read. It's perfect for just picking up, opening any page, and immediately being drawn into some story. I always enjoyed Bret Hart matches. That Boston one with Steamboat was one of those "Hey, I taped wrestling the other night, you gotta see this" memorable matches from when I was 14.

He'd just turn me off years later with all the bitter "Flair sucks, Memphis wrestling sucks, My Dad's promotion was the greatest promotion ever, Shawn and Hunter ruined wrestling, etc, etc, etc, stuff." I get where the guy's coming from and totally understand why he'd be bitter and why he'd feel that way, but he was wrong about a lot of stuff, at least in my opinion.

 

But, as someone who at the time only watched RAW and the PPV's, the deal about him only shining for PPV Main Events? It may be true, I don't know, and I don't care because those Main Events were what I was watching and he was always good/ great in them.

[ohtani's jacket]

Bret's storytelling or psychology, whatever you want to call it, is really overrated. Whoever said he worked underneath as the underdog all the time was right on the money.

I probably shouldn't take the bait but that is a curious statement at best. Just looking at his 1994, I can think of only two instances when he worked as an underdog (vs. Yokozuna, Diesel).

 

The Quebecers tag through to Owen re-injuring his leg in the Wrestlemania opener and Bret coming out on one leg to challenge Yokozuna for the title was all classic Bret. He had so many leg injuries he should have retired mid career. That and his tweener work were his go to stories.

[Frankensteiner]

Bret's storytelling or psychology, whatever you want to call it, is really overrated. Whoever said he worked underneath as the underdog all the time was right on the money.

I probably shouldn't take the bait but that is a curious statement at best. Just looking at his 1994, I can think of only two instances when he worked as an underdog (vs. Yokozuna, Diesel).

 

The Quebecers tag through to Owen re-injuring his leg in the Wrestlemania opener and Bret coming out on one leg to challenge Yokozuna for the title was all classic Bret. He had so many leg injuries he should have retired mid career. That and his tweener work were his go to stories.

 

Working an injury is not the same as working as an under-dog. The Owen and Diesel matches in 1994 are worked completely differently.

 

But what are the other leg injury matches he worked? Because you only named 3 out of a 6 year span.

[ohtani's jacket]

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

 

Bret sold the knee all the time. He'd do it in random Raw matches like the one against Bigelow in '93. He even faked a knee injury after the match with Hakushi and worked a real knee injury into the Austin feud. He loved to sell a limp and he was forever proud of the fact that he'd come to the ring the next night still selling the injury. He even did it in WCW. The knee was supposed to be his Achilles heel or something.

[Dylan Waco]

I think the reason people remember Bret v. Kid so much is that it was worked different than other Bret matches in the sense that it was more hierarchical in form. I'm not sure I agree with OJ that Bret relied on the underdog bit non stop, but I don't think it's wildly off.

[ohtani's jacket]

The way Bret worked was to target his opponent's injured body parts while selling his own injuries and since Bret usually sold more than his opponent it often seemed like he'd taken a huge beating. He was clearly supposed to be a ring general but he sold so much that he often seemed to escape with a victory. The roll-up finishes also give me that impression. I may be overstating how often he played the underdog, but it was a lot. Perhaps he was trying to go the sympathetic babyface route. I'm not that surprised that people prefer him as a heel as a lot of his schtick suited the cocky heel role, as well as many of his best face performances containing a tweener bit.

 

I like the guy. I just think the way he worked was relatively straight forward and not such amazing storytelling.

[NintendoLogic]

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.

[Dylan Waco]

The problem with "if you are great when you want to be your great" thinking is that if you look hard enough you can probably find great individual performances from people who aren't generally thought of as being great workers.

 

On Bret v. Han, yes the schedule does matter, but so does the level of difficulty. Han was a master at a style that is far more difficult to work than Bret's style of match. That's not to say Han is automatically better than Bret as a result, but the idea that any solid worker could have looked amazing working the style Han worked is pretty clearly not true.

[NintendoLogic]

The problem with "if you are great when you want to be your great" thinking is that if you look hard enough you can probably find great individual performances from people who aren't generally thought of as being great workers.

That's true in the abstract, but someone like Bret has enough great performances that they can't all be written off as flukes or anomalies.

 

On Bret v. Han, yes the schedule does matter, but so does the level of difficulty. Han was a master at a style that is far more difficult to work than Bret's style of match. That's not to say Han is automatically better than Bret as a result, but the idea that any solid worker could have looked amazing working the style Han worked is pretty clearly not true.

I'm not saying that anyone could have looked good doing shoot style, just that it's much easier to stay fresh and motivated when you're working a light schedule.

[El-P]

Dave has said for years he was only over because New Japan fans bought into him as a legit tough guy.

Let's pimp Shinya !

[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.

 

Bret sold the knee all the time. He'd do it in random Raw matches like the one against Bigelow in '93. He even faked a knee injury after the match with Hakushi and worked a real knee injury into the Austin feud. He loved to sell a limp and he was forever proud of the fact that he'd come to the ring the next night still selling the injury. He even did it in WCW. The knee was supposed to be his Achilles heel or something.

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.

[Frankensteiner]

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.

All that is questionable. I think Volk was awesome but he also has a some nondescript matches. I don't really see how you can compare the two given the different styles. Probably depends on your view of WWF vs. Shoot-style. I wasn't really trying to compare the two as workers, just in terms of percentage of hits and misses.

 

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.

The latter is something that I may agree with but I would go lower than his 40th best match. I think the case for Bret is in the strength of his matches 11-30, and also that his top 10 is as good as or better than any other US workers.

[Loss]

Let's move the Hash talk to the Hash thread.

[rainmakerrtv]

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.

[WingedEagle]

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.

That is the best possible reason for having him ranked so highly.

[ohtani's jacket]

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?

[NintendoLogic]

Did Bret really sell too much? After all, he was a smaller guy in a big man's promotion. Even so, he had plenty of matches where he worked on top. Look at the Rumble match where he basically steamrolled Diesel. In fact, I'm pretty sure he inflicted knee injuries more often then he sold them.

[ohtani's jacket]

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.

[jpchicago23]

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 couldn't agree with you more. Bret was my guy as a kid and still is now. Almost to the point where I could almost turn a blind eye to all the negatives and disregard them completely. I feel as if he made me a loyal fan and I have to defend him which is perfectly fine I might add. Sometimes you're favorite is just you're top guy even if he does stuff you don't like in wrestling. It's a lot like my hardcore fandom with Chicago sports teams. The cubs have sucked for a century and ill defend them to the death just like I would jay cutler and have Rex grossman.