Bret Hart v. Shawn Michaels - a feud or a rivalry?

[MoS]

I was going through a very old thread on Classics where people were debating Shawn's place in the WON Hall of Fame. Someone did a Gordy list on him, and mentioned the Bret-Shawn feud as a defining feud of the era. It was countered by people - I think one of them was jdw - saying that it was mostly a "rivalry", as their matches were mostly a series of infrequent, disjointed matches, with no real rhythm to them. A match in 1992, the WM 12 main event, and the Survivor Series one. As such, it could not be classified as a feud, much less an epic one.

 

That leads into a larger question: how do you distinguish between the two terms? If they just had one-offs at infrequent intervals, then I guess it could have just been a rivalry. And had they just stopped at the WM 12 main event, I would have guessed. But even if they had just one match after that, 1997 was in large revolving around them, whether it was the individual tension between them, or between their two factions. An argument can be made that they were crucial in keeping the company heated after Austin-Hart Foundation had lit a fire under their ass. I would argue Shawn was never as over as he was when he was playing the dickhead heel wiping his nose with the Canadian flag and fornicating with it on PPV. More to the point: does a rivalry stop being a rivalry and become a feud when it is pushed afterwards as having so many iconic, legendary moments?

 

People were also saying in the Bret-Austin thread that it was not a proper feud, because it had no satisfying ending. I am curious to see how people distinguish between the two, in this case as well as in general.

[thebrainfollower]

Rivalry.

 

 

They had a feud in the summer of 92 and that's really it as far as a traditional feud goes. Everything in 97 was real life hate and a rivalry but not really a month in month out feud.

[Johnny Sorrow]

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

They were clearly feuding in 97. Don't know how anyone can argue that. 96 probably wasn't really a feud. 92 probably was. It was a rivalry made up of 2 or more separate feuds.

[thebrainfollower]

I guess the month between Bad Blood and Survior Series was a feud.

[Childs]

Whatever you want to call it, it's a bit overblown in the WWE version of history. Bret vs. Austin was a longer, more sustained, hotter feud/rivalry.

[thebrainfollower]

Completely agreed.

[Frankensteiner]

Whatever you want to call it, it's a bit overblown in the WWE version of history. Bret vs. Austin was a longer, more sustained, hotter feud/rivalry.

 

I don't know that I agree there. Bret/Austin really ended in July after the 10-man where Austin moved on to Owen. Bret/Shawn started in December 96 and went through to Montreal (you can even trace the beginning of the feud all the way back to February '96). The fact that they didn't have proper matches until November shouldn't mean they weren't feuding. It was pretty clear they were always building to a match at several points only to have it be derailed by injuries. And Survivor Series 97 did better business-wise than any of the Bret/Austin PPVs.

[Childs]

The little stretch between Summerslam and Survivor Series was strong, and obviously, Survivor Series was a huge moment (though that ended up being more about Vince than about Shawn). But they didn't put an effective focus on Bret vs. Shawn from Dec. 96-Aug. 97, even though it was simmering in the background. Shawn hardly wrestled in that stretch, and his role was in transition. Bret-Austin was more compelling both week to week and in terms of the payoff matches.

 

Honestly, what I liked best about WWE in that run was the way all the main event storylines overlapped.