Tatsumi Fujinami vs Bret Hart

[Frankensteiner]

I started this poll last year before the GWE discussion was renewed. So wanted to re-post in the 'vs' folder to see current opinions.

[Tetsujin]

Man this is super hard. I have both as top 10 contenders and I right now I would rank them pretty close to each other, but I'm not so sure about the order. Brain says Fuji, guts say Bret. Both are masters at the offense, and at their best they're among the best sellers of all time. Fuji's peak was among some of the best wrestlers ever, so he might have more overall very good and great matches, while Bret peaked surrounded by (much) lesser workers, so he had to carry them and he did it wonderfully. Bret might have the best one on one matches, but Fujinami has the best multiman matches. I would've loved for Bret to stay wrestling during the 00s and see how well he could had been as a aging veteran like Shawn ort Taker did, and Fujinami's veteran work at the 90s, for what I've seen, is pretty decent (and has a fucking amazing match with Hashimoto which might be his best singles match ever, and that means a lot to me). I think I also like pre-peak Fuji more than pre-peak Bret.

[Boss Rock]

I lean Fujinami just due to having a longer career with arguably more volume. But Bret has higher peaks.

[Jetlag]

I'd say Fujinamis peaks pretty much crush Brets, though Bret never had the luxury of facing Maeda, Inoki, Vader, Hashimoto etc. in their primes.

[El-P]

10 hours ago, Tetsujin said:

Fuji's peak was among some of the best wrestlers ever, so he might have more overall very good and great matches, while Bret peaked surrounded by (much) lesser workers, so he had to carry them and he did it wonderfully. 

Pretty much.

10 hours ago, Tetsujin said:

Bret might have the best one on one matches, but Fujinami has the best multiman matches.

True, but the comparison also doesn't really mean much because of the difference in contexts. NJPW was heavy on multimen matches that mattered then (as opposed to now, sadly), whereas Bret always worked in a context where multimen matches really did not happen very much. It reminds me of the argument of worker X (usually Rey) from 00's and 10's WWE being the best TV worker ever. Well, of course he is, because WWE was super heavy on putting on good TV matches (in a very patterned style which was conducive to have those) during a time where they had shitloads of TV programming to fill, nothing was easier than being the best TV worker in that context for a really good worker (not naming anyone specific here), but what does it really says in the grand scheme of things when comparing peak work ? It is tricky. Bret worked at a time where WWE was not structured that way, therefore he could not be the best WWE TV worker, simply because of the context. Which is probably why I tend to lean more toward the peak work. Getting back to Fuji vs Bret, if I only take in account the straight output in term of numbers of very good + matches, I'm probably sure Fuji takes it, but if I look at the peaks, factoring many elements, I would take Bret (which I did).

I had not seen it, but if you believe Wiki, when Bret introduced Fujinami at the WWE HOF, he said he always wanted to be the great worker Fujinami was. From one to another, nice.

10 hours ago, Tetsujin said:

I would've loved for Bret to stay wrestling during the 00s and see how well he could had been as a aging veteran like Shawn ort Taker did

Yeah, Bret back in WWE working against the younger generation or in TNA (I mean, why not) against the Styles and the Joes and Daniels of the world would certainly have been quite interesting and produced some excellent stuff. Fuck Goldberg for robbing pro-wrestling of those years.

[Frankensteiner]

Not sure I buy the peak argument in Fujinami’s favor. I see Fuji’s advantage as being more of a longevity candidate. You can say he peaked earlier and therefore was a great worker longer than Bret. On the other hand, I think Bret’s output after age 36 (post-1993) is better than what Fujinami did at the same age (post 1989).

The other thing is that when thinking about these two, there really are a number of comparable matchups:

Fujinami/Inoki  VS  Bret/Backlund
Fujinami/Maeda  VS  Bret/Perfect
Fujinami/Hase  VS  Bret/Owen
Fujinami/Choshu  VS  Bret/Austin
Fujinami/Hashimoto  VS  Bret/Diesel
Fujinami/Kimura  VS  Bret/Bulldog
Fujinami/Liger  VS  Bret/Kid
Fujinami/Muto  VS  Bret/Shawn
Fujinami/Vader  VS  Bret/Yokozuna
Fujinami/Bigelow   VS  Bret/Bigelow
Fujinami/Lawler  VS  Bret/Lawler  (this is admitedly not a great comparsion since the psychology of the matchups was different)
Fujinami/Flair  VS  Bret/Flair
Fujinami/Fujiwara  VS  Bret/Piper

These are pretty close to me, although I would lean Bret in terms of peak output.

[Grimmas]

I think Bret is easily a top 10 candidate, while Fujinami may not even make my list.

[Childs]

7 hours ago, Frankensteiner said:

Not sure I buy the peak argument in Fujinami’s favor. I see Fuji’s advantage as being more of a longevity candidate. You can say he peaked earlier and therefore was a great worker longer than Bret. On the other hand, I think Bret’s output after age 36 (post-1993) is better than what Fujinami did at the same age (post 1989).

It seems odd to me to zero in on post-36 output as a measure of peak performance, because that would ignore Fujinami's massive advantage in pre-36 output. Now, you can argue that Bret caught up with his work from '93-'97'. That's where a lot of his case would flow from, and I agree that he outperformed Fujinami in the nineties. But they didn't peak in the same age range or in the same time period. Anyhow, I will have Bret in the top half of my ballot, but Fujinami beats him soundly on both input and output. 

[ohtani's jacket]

What is pre-peak Fujinami? He is phenomenal in the earliest footage we have of him. One of the all-time great juniors. Then he made the successful transition into a heavyweight star, which let's face it, not more wrestlers have done. Post-injury Fujinami is a good worker. He wasn't a contemporary of Bret's by any measure since the Musketeers were the headliners in the 90s. There isn't a single Bret Hart match in WCW that compares to Fujinami's 90s stuff except for possibly the Benoit Owen Tribute match. When people talk about what Bret could have done with the next generation of talent I'm always a bit skeptical since he couldn't achieve much with the talent that WCW had at the time. Bret, to me, was a guy who fed off the WWF hype machine. Without that machine behind him he was a far less interesting wrestler. The only way I can imagine his career have ended differently is if Montreal had never happened, and even then his contract was such an albatross around Vince's neck that I don't see things ending well. My biggest What If? with Bret is that Austin return match at Wrestlemania 14. Anyway, Fujinami was clearly a better wrestler than Bret in-ring, though I can see the argument for Bret working better matches (Austin vs. Bret, etc.)

[Makai Club #1]

The last time I drew up a draft, I put Fujinami above Bret. Bret just missed my top 10 but he could sneak in on the different day. Fujinami, for me, has depth, longevity and a great (yes, great) post peak run. Fujinami transitioned from role to role seemlessly, as illustrated above. And, not to take anything away from Bret's classic with Austin at WM 13 (and the others he has), Fujinami has better best match between the two. Fujinami v Inoki is, at worst, my top 5 favourite match. If I was to criticise Bret for anything, it'd be for the Hart Foundation run which was a bit underwhelming, although it has its bright moments. 

[Frankensteiner]

On 2/14/2022 at 3:55 PM, Childs said:

It seems odd to me to zero in on post-36 output as a measure of peak performance, because that would ignore Fujinami's massive advantage in pre-36 output. Now, you can argue that Bret caught up with his work from '93-'97'. That's where a lot of his case would flow from, and I agree that he outperformed Fujinami in the nineties. But they didn't peak in the same age range or in the same time period. Anyhow, I will have Bret in the top half of my ballot, but Fujinami beats him soundly on both input and output. 

Not sure what's odd about that. It's just a way of saying Fujinami was better early and Bret was better late. And although I didn't make this point earlier, I personally put more emphasis on their mid-to-late 30's work as that was when both guys were on top.

I also don't consider Fujinami's junior work as part of his peak. He was definitely already a good worker but also a little bland at times. I think he really hit his peak in '83.  

[Childs]

12 hours ago, Frankensteiner said:

Not sure what's odd about that. It's just a way of saying Fujinami was better early and Bret was better late. And although I didn't make this point earlier, I personally put more emphasis on their mid-to-late 30's work as that was when both guys were on top.

I also don't consider Fujinami's junior work as part of his peak. He was definitely already a good worker but also a little bland at times. I think he really hit his peak in '83.  

It's odd because it means you're treating the nineties as Fujinami's most meaningful period (he turned 36 on 12/28/89) when he had been a great, featured worker since 1977. It feels like a rhetorical trick that works in Bret's favor while miscasting the nature of Fujinami's career arc. I think your broad take - Fujinami early vs. Bret late - is reasonable, but pre-36 Fujinami is a huge chunk of excellent work. He could have left his boots in the ring on his 36th birthday and he'd still be a top-20 wrestler of all time. 

[MichaelZ]

Both are great, but I voted for Fujinami. Great variety over a long period of time. Also, I may be limited to watching high end matches so far but I didn’t find his junior work to be bland at all; the matwork drew me in and then he would show more fire than I expected as the matches I saw went on.