Rumours that Bret Hart might return to the WWE...

[Bix]

There's also the story in the book where he outright admits to accidentally injuring Randy Savage's foot, which I guess establishes some sort of barometer for never "seriously injuring another wrestler" or "never injuring a wrestler so badly that he couldn't work the next day."

 

Also, in Bret's book the Bad News head shot story was with a kendo stick, for what it's worth.

[ohtani's jacket]

Frank, why do you expect two people to have the same recollection of events that happened thirty years ago, especially wnen it's a "he said/she said" point of contention? You're not going to get an honest third party account of events, and I don't see why it matters.

 

Of course Bret has his own ideas and accounts of what happened in his life and career -- he's writing about himself. You're looking for way too much truth out of what is simply an autobiography. If Bret were to stop and argue every point from both sides he wouldn't be giving his own account of what happened. And his self-awareness or whatever you want to call it, is it supposed to match your opinion on what you read?

 

The reader can draw their own conclusions. I read the Stu Hart part that you quoted and didn't think there was anything wrong with what he did to the kid who was trying to steal his car. Ultimately, he was a guy who both feared and respected his father. It's not an uncommon story. Maybe Bret could have been more introspective about how it shaped him, but who's to say he's ever thought about it that way? I'm sure Bret tried to protect his father in a way when he wrote this book, while not giving a fuck about people he didn't care for, but that's only natural too.

 

It's like you're searching for the perfect book to give you accurate statements about something we'll never know the truth about. Bret has an enormous amount of pride and more than his share of issues, and you need to bear that in mind when you read his book. He's also been through a lot of shit I hope I never have to go through, so if he comes out of the whole thing seeming like he's fucked up then that's probably a pretty honest account of himself whether he intended to portray himself like that or not.

 

The guy is struggling to figure out what to do with himself now that he can't wrestle anymore and if he writes a book or reappears on WWE TV (which he already did for his HOF induction anyway), who cares... Of course he misses the spotlight. He was perfectly happy in the role they had him playing up until 1995. The idea that he should get on with his life, while true, is easier said than done.

[Guest John O'Neill]

Frank, why do you expect two people to have the same recollection of events that happened thirty years ago, especially wnen it's a "he said/she said" point of contention? You're not going to get an honest third party account of events, and I don't see why it matters.

Why do I expect people to have the same recollection of events? Because I've read plenty of books where people tell the same story with the same opinion. No wrestlers have any coloured perspective of what happened with Dave Schultz on that 20/20 program, or if they do I haven't read it yet. There's plenty of stories I've read that are believable because wrestlers have the same perspective on what happened.

 

As for an honest third party account - I don't see what's wrong with a third party account. If you've got a he said/she saidpoint of contention, then an unbiased observer is more believable. As I said, Dynamite Kid saw what happened and at the time of writing his book he was still friends with Hart.

 

If Bret were to stop and argue every point from both sides he wouldn't be giving his own account of what happened. And his self-awareness or whatever you want to call it, is it supposed to match your opinion on what you read?

Two points:

 

- Is it so hard to say, "I thought I was right hitting Bad News because he was feeding me, Bad News thought he was right. In hindsight maybe I should have been more careful"? Just because someone is writing about themselves doesn't automatically mean they have to insert their bias. A person's account of what happened can be balanced and honest. It's like you're saying that when a person writes their book it's silly to expect them to check their bias at the door. I don't expect any book to be 100% completely free from bias, but I don't expect it to be loaded with shit either.

 

- I don't understand your point about "my opinion". It's pretty cut and dried certain things happened during Bret's life - these aren't opinions. But the way Bret portrays them are warped. I'm sure you could say something like, "But it's your opinion about how Bret is portraying it etc." Actually it's not. If Jake Roberts sees Dynamite Kid coming back from a match with Bret with welts and bruises all over him, and then says Bret used to be stiff (when he respects Bret and has no motive to take him apart), and then Bret writes a book saying about how Billington was needlessy stiffing him (which he did in retaliation) then it's fair to say it's not my opinion, it's just Bret's bullshit.

 

The reader can draw their own conclusions. I read the Stu Hart part that you quoted and didn't think there was anything wrong with what he did to the kid who was trying to steal his car.

I did say that story wasn't the best example I could use. Maybe I should have used the story about how Stu tried to bribe Bret with a bike once.

 

Maybe Bret could have been more introspective about how it shaped him, but who's to say he's ever thought about it that way?

Actually Bret is very introspective about how Stu shaped him, he thought about it deeply, and thinks Stu did a bloody good job.

 

It's like you're searching for the perfect book to give you accurate statements about something we'll never know the truth about. Bret has an enormous amount of pride and more than his share of issues, and you need to bear that in mind when you read his book.

I'm not searching for the perfect book. I accepted long ago that wrestlers just have gigantic egos and have their own perceptions on how great they were. Bret's just a shocker though, and I rate him alongside DDP as once of the most warped guys in terms of how they see events. They're quite different in how they're warped, but equally as nutty. But yeah Bret's a bit extraordinary, even for a wrestler, in terms of ego.

 

I have sympathy for Bret. The stories in his book about how stroke are heartbreaking. I posted perhaps the saddest story in his book over at Smarkschoice:

 

"Over Christmas at Stu's, Ellie and I had another shouting match with Stu in the middle again. Stu was far more deaf than he was blind and he felt obligated to defend her, as he always did. I'd about had enough of Ellie. The way I tore into her put a scare into Stu. I shouted, "Ellie, this has nothing to do with you or me! This is all about Martha's decision to sue Vince for killing her husband! Your brother! How in the hell can you work hand-in-hand with Vince against your dead brother's wife and kids and your very own parents? How can you sleep at night?"

"Real easy," Ellie shot back.

Stu, who couldn't hear anything, kept defendant her. "I don't believe Ellie is doing that!"

"Dad, she'll tell you herself!"

My mom took up for me, telling Ellie that she and Stu chose to support Martha and it had nothing to do with me. Ellie lashed out, accusing her of always taking my side. I'd had a nonstop headache from hell ever since Goldberg's kick and by the end of this scene my head felt like it was going to explode."

 

The stories about his stroke, Owen's death, his divorce, his parents dying etc - they were all tremendously sad and I have sympathy for him there.

 

You're right he has a tremendous ammount of pride, and it's there that I don't have much sympathy for him. You yourself have said Bret has a tremendous ego and made some bad choices, going way back to 1996. When I think Bret's ego is at play, I don't have much sympathy for him. I think he's the master of his own demise with regard to some issues. Of course those issues don't include Owen's death etc.

 

The guy is struggling to figure out what to do with himself now that he can't wrestle anymore and if he writes a book or reappears on WWE TV (which he already did for his HOF induction anyway), who cares... Of course he misses the spotlight. He was perfectly happy in the role they had him playing up until 1995. The idea that he should get on with his life, while true, is easier said than done.

This is kind of an obtuse paragraph and I don't know where you are criticising me from. I assume you're aiming this at my belief that he should move on? Well I already think he's moved on. If nothing else the book seems to have offered him some closure and that's wonderful. He seems happier and less "I can't believe they screwed me these days".

[ohtani's jacket]

Why do I expect people to have the same recollection of events? Because I've read plenty of books where people tell the same story with the same opinion. No wrestlers have any coloured perspective of what happened with Dave Schultz on that 20/20 program, or if they do I haven't read it yet. There's plenty of stories I've read that are believable because wrestlers have the same perspective on what happened.

Nobody remembers events exactly as they happened.

 

In Bret's case, he's repeated the line about never injuring someone so many times that he clearly believes it never happened. Bad News came out and said that was bullshit. I'm more inclined to believe Bad News for the simple reason that it's highly unlikely that Bret never injured anyone, but all it really amounts to is two ex-wrestlers disagreeing over something that happened aeons ago. I can't understand why anyone would be interested in it unless they want proof of Bret talking shit, but at the end of the day you have to take one worker's word over the other. Bret might be lying, he might have conned himself into believing it never happened, he may even have been oblivious to what he did wrong at the time. For all we know, he didn't understand what was happening at the time and has continued to misunderstand it all these years. Perhaps he forgot about it until Bad News brought it up and struggled to make sense of something he thought he couldn't possibly have done. My point is that there's no way to know whether Bret is lying and knows damn well what happened all those years ago. Some people might apologise for the sake of it, but Bret's the type of guy who'll find an excuse for anything.

 

As for sharing the same perspective, it's not going to happen if you're talking about Bret's reputation as a worker being brought into "disrepute." Bret prides himself on his work. He would never admit that he was anything less than what he claims to be.

 

As for an honest third party account - I don't see what's wrong with a third party account. If you've got a he said/she saidpoint of contention, then an unbiased observer is more believable. As I said, Dynamite Kid saw what happened and at the time of writing his book he was still friends with Hart.

Well, is Dynamite Kid really the most trustworthy person for an honest account of what happened? Does it even matter whether he has any reason to lie? When it comes to wrestlers, a lot of people pick and choose what they want to believe. On one hand, they think wrestlers are carnies and all full of shit, but when a wrestler says something they buy suddenly we're supposed to believe these guys? People ought to read these books for entertainment purposes and not to learn the truth. I'm not saying Dynamite Kid is lying, but just because he said it in his book isn't any reason to believe it.

 

- Is it so hard to say, "I thought I was right hitting Bad News because he was feeding me, Bad News thought he was right. In hindsight maybe I should have been more careful"? Just because someone is writing about themselves doesn't automatically mean they have to insert their bias. A person's account of what happened can be balanced and honest. It's like you're saying that when a person writes their book it's silly to expect them to check their bias at the door. I don't expect any book to be 100% completely free from bias, but I don't expect it to be loaded with shit either.

Sure, Bret could've said that. The only problem is that it's Bret Hart we're talking about. I don't think you can write a book without bias, especially not an autobiography.

 

- I don't understand your point about "my opinion". It's pretty cut and dried certain things happened during Bret's life - these aren't opinions. But the way Bret portrays them are warped. I'm sure you could say something like, "But it's your opinion about how Bret is portraying it etc." Actually it's not. If Jake Roberts sees Dynamite Kid coming back from a match with Bret with welts and bruises all over him, and then says Bret used to be stiff (when he respects Bret and has no motive to take him apart), and then Bret writes a book saying about how Billington was needlessy stiffing him (which he did in retaliation) then it's fair to say it's not my opinion, it's just Bret's bullshit.

What Roberts is saying is probably true, but it's easy to make observations about other people. If someone were to say something about Jake, chances are he'd get defensive. My point about your opinion was really in regard to Stu Hart:

 

Actually Bret is very introspective about how Stu shaped him, he thought about it deeply, and thinks Stu did a bloody good job.

Okay, so Bret has thought a lot about his father, are you going to tell him that he's wrong? That he ought to think of his father as some kind of monster? Bret's opinion about his father is Bret's opinion and you just have to accept that. There's a difference between not agreeing with someone's opinion and out and out stating that they're being dishonest.

 

I'm not searching for the perfect book. I accepted long ago that wrestlers just have gigantic egos and have their own perceptions on how great they were. Bret's just a shocker though, and I rate him alongside DDP as once of the most warped guys in terms of how they see events. They're quite different in how they're warped, but equally as nutty. But yeah Bret's a bit extraordinary, even for a wrestler, in terms of ego.

Well, then it's a warped, nutty and extraordinarily egotistical book. If you want honesty, you got it right there. What does it matter if Bret has an ego anyway? If there was no ego, there would've been no Bret "the Hitman" Hart. He would've been some regular Joe in Canada. Ego is part of what drives people to succeed, but it also has an ugly side. Personally, I think Bret is a complicated guy. If he comes across as egotistical, I think it has a lot to do with his insecurities, but I don't wanna draw a lot of conclusions about some guy I don't know.

 

You're right he has a tremendous ammount of pride, and it's there that I don't have much sympathy for him. You yourself have said Bret has a tremendous ego and made some bad choices, going way back to 1996. When I think Bret's ego is at play, I don't have much sympathy for him. I think he's the master of his own demise with regard to some issues. Of course those issues don't include Owen's death etc.

Everybody makes mistakes in life. Bret's just played out in public or as close as the wrestling business comes to being "public." To say he was the master of his own demise simply plays into the Shakespearean tragedy thing that you don't think it's worthy of. He fucked up -- a few times, numerous times, whatever.

 

This is kind of an obtuse paragraph and I don't know where you are criticising me from. I assume you're aiming this at my belief that he should move on? Well I already think he's moved on. If nothing else the book seems to have offered him some closure and that's wonderful. He seems happier and less "I can't believe they screwed me these days".

Well, everything I say is obtuse, but let me try to explain myself -- has Bret really moved on? From all accounts, he sists at home watching WWE and critiquing the workers' performances, both his own relatives and other people. I think he'd kill to wrestle again, but he knows he can't do it physically or to the level or standard that he did before. He tried hard to stay away from the business, but his marriage to that younger woman fell apart and now he's hit a bit of a dead end. All of this is perfectly understandable. The fact is that other people never let him move on. If he reappears on RAW, hundreds of threads like this pop up. Wrestling journalists, or whatever you call them, ask him the same questions. People will never let him forget Montreal or Owen or any of that mess. I think they should let the guy be. If he embarrasses himself on this RAW stint or by working a match, so what... If it means that Vince "won" in the long run, so what... It's a childish business and people feed into it over and over again. I'm sure none of that made any sense, but does it really matter that Bret is coming back? Ask yourself that question. If you think it matters, then ask why? If the reason is because Bret is full of shit, ask yourself why it matters that Bret Hart is full of shit. All I want to know is why anyone would care.

[Guest John O'Neill]

I thought I might edit my posts because:

 

a) It's too long

Isn't quite conveying what I'm trying to get across

c) Makes it seem like I have a vendetta against Bret

 

Basically the Bad News moment is a well remembered event by Bret, Bad News, and those who saw it. Bret's story doesn't sound plausible. Do I expect every acount of it to be accurate? No, I don't expect any account of it to be accurate. But Bret's account just isn't plausible.

 

You're grasping at straws there. Dynamite comes off as credible in his book when he tells of this story. It's difficult to find a reason why he'd lie or have a poor idea of what happened. Is what he said unquestionably 100% the accurate acount? No, and I couldn't say that about any wrestler. He's a lot more believable than other wrestlers though and that counts for something.

 

Basically Billington and Roberts' accounts are mroe believable, while its entirely possible they're not 100% correct, they're sure more plausible than anything Bret says. Bret isn't plausible.

 

What does it matter if Bret has an ego anyway?

I'd prefer to read a book that's honest and accurate. With an autobiography I know you're going to get a lot of bias. But my points are these:

 

1. Even by autobiography standards Bret inserts a hell of a lot of bias.

2. My action is really a reaction to an action. Bret's book came out and people suddenly were talking about how honest and hard hitting it was. It's nothing like that. It's full of shit.

 

Has Bret moved on? I think so. His interviews are noticably happier and less bitter these days. He's less critical of the WWE product, unlike how he used to be.

 

I'm sure he'd love to wrestle again, in the same way Colin Meads says he wishes he could still play rugby, but that doesn't make him bitter. In fact he gave an interview last year when he talked about his star fading and how his time has passed and how he'd be unable to make a huge impact as newer stars have appeared. It was a nice change for Bret and I was happy for him.

 

The fact is that other people never let him move on.

I half agree with that. It's difficult to move on when everyone asks you about Montreal, or Owen, or your ex-wife etc. I only half agree with that because a lot of that sympathy comes from Bret promoting himself as some kind of martyed hero.

 

but does it really matter that Bret is coming back? Ask yourself that question. If you think it matters, then ask why? If the reason is because Bret is full of shit, ask yourself why it matters that Bret Hart is full of shit. All I want to know is why anyone would care.

It's not a huge deal to me Dan. I'd have preferred to read a better book involving Bret. When people say it's a great book they're entitled to their opinion, as much as I'm entitled to disagree with them (this is a discussion board). As for him being back, I think it's worthy questioning why people still love him after years of saying he has too much integrity to come back. People ought to be consistent.

[Dylan Waco]

Biased or not I'd be hard pressed to think of any reason to call Bret's book anything less than very good by the standards of pro wrestling books

[tomk]

I'm not searching for the perfect book. I accepted long ago that wrestlers just have gigantic egos and have their own perceptions on how great they were. Bret's just a shocker though, and I rate him alongside DDP as once of the most warped guys in terms of how they see events. They're quite different in how they're warped, but equally as nutty. But yeah Bret's a bit extraordinary, even for a wrestler, in terms of ego.

Jake Roberts: "She was such a kind little thing you know. And right there part of me that goes she's going to live the rest of her life and have seven kids and whatever and wind up being a lady truck driver that crossdresses or something but she'll always remember tonight. Y'know. That's why I always enjoy the small town. They really dig it. They really appreciate it. You go to a place like this by God. I could be mayor here if I wanted to next week. They'd execute the one they've got and put me in power. I'd be a dictator mayor. And they'd love it. That's some scary shit"

 

I'm trying to come up with a wrestler who isn't a delusional egomaniac. I mean some of them use some rhetorical humility...but c'mon for guys who have posted regular columns on thew web I don't see Bret anywhere near top 5 most delusional. Out of wreslters in general, I don't see him as that warped.

[1004Holds]

^ Nick Bockwinkel, the Rock, Keiji Mutoh, and Sting never came off like delusional egomaniacs but I never really paid attention to the backstage stuff.

[ohtani's jacket]

Basically the Bad News moment is a well remembered event by Bret, Bad News, and those who saw it. Bret's story doesn't sound plausible. Do I expect every acount of it to be accurate? No, I don't expect any account of it to be accurate. But Bret's account just isn't plausible.

Well, if Bret's account doesn't sound plausible then you already know who to believe. My question is why the need for Bret to admit that he's wrong? Of all the things Bret has bullshitted to himself about over the years, I don't think the Bad News Allen story is a major factor in whether Bret is warped or not. Surely there must be better examples from the book.

 

You're grasping at straws there. Dynamite comes off as credible in his book when he tells of this story. It's difficult to find a reason why he'd lie or have a poor idea of what happened. Is what he said unquestionably 100% the accurate acount? No, and I couldn't say that about any wrestler. He's a lot more believable than other wrestlers though and that counts for something.

C'mon, you don't know what Dynamite Kid's intentions were for including the story in his book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Dynamite spill some dirt on Bret in his book, which IIRC Bret didn't particularly appreciate at the time, only to turn around and confess in his own book that he wasn't the clean living, family guy he played on TV? The impression I always got was that DK was taking some none so subtle jabs at Bret, which isn't to say that DK was lying about the Bad News story, but I think it's in the book for a reason because it's not that interesting a story without Bret getting his knickers in a twist about it.

 

I'd prefer to read a book that's honest and accurate. With an autobiography I know you're going to get a lot of bias. But my points are these:

 

1. Even by autobiography standards Bret inserts a hell of a lot of bias.

2. My action is really a reaction to an action. Bret's book came out and people suddenly were talking about how honest and hard hitting it was. It's nothing like that. It's full of shit.

Well, I think you'd need to read a book written by a historian. Unfortunately, most wrestling books are written by fans turned authors.

 

It was a nice change for Bret and I was happy for him.

Why do you believe this? I'm just curious as to how you decide one thing is plausible and another isn't.

 

I half agree with that. It's difficult to move on when everyone asks you about Montreal, or Owen, or your ex-wife etc. I only half agree with that because a lot of that sympathy comes from Bret promoting himself as some kind of martyed hero.

Well, that's true, but I think if I were Bret Hart I'd be pretty torn between moving on and being fucked off at all the things that happened to me even if some of them were my fault. At any rate, it'll be interesting to see what they do with Bret.

 

As for him being back, I think it's worthy questioning why people still love him after years of saying he has too much integrity to come back. People ought to be consistent.

Same reason why people will love Tiger Woods again when he returns. Anyone who's excited about Bret returning is more than likely someone who's always dreamed that Bret would have one last run with the WWE. Entertainment matters more than anything else in pro-wrestling.

[Guest John O'Neill]

My question is why the need for Bret to admit that he's wrong? Of all the things Bret has bullshitted to himself about over the years, I don't think the Bad News Allen story is a major factor in whether Bret is warped or not. Surely there must be better examples from the book.

I could probably fish out 20 better examples from his book that display Bret being warped, the Bad News story is just good for showing Bret as lying. Why would I like Bret to admit he's wrong? I don't really care, like I said above. You're making this out to be bigger thing than it is. I'd prefer it if Bret were consistent in his storytelling, that's why I care.

 

I remember after Montreal Michael Landsberg was interviewing Triple H on Off The Record, and Hunter started saying how he supported Vince in what he did because back in 1993 Bret was angry about how Hogan wouldn't do the favour for him. Now when it was time for Bret to do Shawn the favour he wouldn't do it. Landsberg got on the offensive and said something like, "Bret was happy to lose anywhere but Montreal." In fact that was Bret's story for the first year or so after Montreal - that he would lose anywhere else but Montreal.

 

But as time went on Bret started saying how he refused to lose because Shawn had disrepected him by saying he wouldn't lose to him. Maybe that was the right story, after all that was part of the account he gave Dave Meltzer in late 1997. But why then say he was happy to lose anywhere else but Montreal?

 

Like I said, I'd prefer it if he were consistent. But I'm not losing sleep over it, like you're almost inferring by constantly saying 'I want to know why you care'. In fact I'm just a guy on a discussion board raising different opinions. People want to talk about Bret coming back and how great it is, and how great his book is (nobody on this board has said that tbf), and I'm just inclined to disagree with them, this being a discussion board.

 

Maybe I need a job when I'm not in front of a computer???

 

C'mon, you don't know what Dynamite Kid's intentions were for including the story in his book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Dynamite spill some dirt on Bret in his book, which IIRC Bret didn't particularly appreciate at the time, only to turn around and confess in his own book that he wasn't the clean living, family guy he played on TV?

Dynamite said some shit in his book that didn't do Bret any favours, but it didn't come off as Dynamite trying to screw Bret. Like I said, that's the good thing about Billington's book - he's not meaning to come off as a mean bastardly bully, but he's so honest about most things he comes off as he is.

 

Bret wrote in his book that he was upset about Dynamite writing a story in his book about Stu scraping cat shit off a spatula while making breakfast for him. Interestingly enough, as someone who's read Dynamite's book several times, I never came across such a story. Although there were stories about Bret being with Dynamite the first time they did drugs together and other shit...

 

Well, I think you'd need to read a book written by a historian. Unfortunately, most wrestling books are written by fans turned authors.

There are better wrestling books out there than Bret's book, and I guess after being such a fan of his during my younger days (if yuou can believe it) I expected a better book. I've read other wrestling books filled with bias that were better IMO. People can disagree with that - this is a discussion board.

 

Why do you believe this? I'm just curious as to how you decide one thing is plausible and another isn't.

I guess just as you tend to view things as if you're watching a movie (wrestling/rugby/cricket/life), I tend to look at things as if people were on trial. When people are on trial you look at:

 

- Motive/intention

- Body language

- Consistency in storytelling etc

 

Bret sounds credible when he says this stuff. With other stuff he starts being inconsistent and comes off as uncredible.

 

Well, that's true, but I think if I were Bret Hart I'd be pretty torn between moving on and being fucked off at all the things that happened to me even if some of them were my fault.

Yeah he got dealt a shitty card in life.

 

Same reason why people will love Tiger Woods again when he returns. Anyone who's excited about Bret returning is more than likely someone who's always dreamed that Bret would have one last run with the WWE. Entertainment matters more than anything else in pro-wrestling.

I disagree with that 100%.

 

- Tiger Woods reputation will never recover, and while his return will generate interest, people will never look at him the same. He's fucked.

- The people who are most excited about Bret's return seem to be Bret's hardcore fanbase (which is pretty large), who for years have claimed he has too much integrity to return to the WWE. Why do I care? Like I said before, people ought to be consistent.

 

"I'm John O'Neill and I'm looking towards 2011."

[ohtani's jacket]

Well Frank, I don't think Bret changing his story a bunch of times is grounds for calling him a liar. I can see that his inconsistency bothers you, but I don't think he has as clear cut an idea about the truth as you expect him to, and I don't think he can separate his emotions from these issues.

 

As for Tiger Woods, he'll recover. The same way Beckham did, and Warne, and Magic Johnson, and Kobe Bryant... and every other major sports star who cheated on his wife.

[Guest John O'Neill]

Well Frank, I don't think Bret changing his story a bunch of times is grounds for calling him a liar.

I actually never called him a liar once. If you read my posts carefully I never used the word liar. I did say he wasn't being honest, and most people might think that infers a person is lying, but that's why I wrote this:

 

'Honesty is a tricky notion - few people are honest. We are all influenced by our biases and prejudices. Sometimes when people say things they're not lying, they're being their approximation of truthful, but what they're saying isn't the truth - if that makes sense.'

 

I don't think Bret is consciously lying. He's just influenced by his biases, like a lot of us are. In terms of being influenced by one's ego, Bret's a shocker though. That's why I posted a few days ago that I don't get how people can say his book is this honest, hard hitting story. It's a good book that I'd recommend primarily for being so long, informative, and choc-full of content. But Bret's a mark for himself.

 

I can see that his inconsistency bothers you, but I don't think he has as clear cut an idea about the truth as you expect him to, and I don't think he can separate his emotions from these issues.

That has actually been my point all along. He's warped. He's not consciously lying, but he can't seperate his emotions from these issues. I swear this whole time you haven't been far from saying the same things I am only worded differently. Maybe I haven't articulated myself properly.

 

As for Tiger Woods, he'll recover. The same way Beckham did, and Warne, and Magic Johnson, and Kobe Bryant... and every other major sports star who cheated on his wife.

Beckham never cheated on his wife, that was just a false rumour (I think???).

 

Shane Warne has never recovered from those scandels. So many people I know think he's a dickhead. You think he's a dickhead. I personally think he's cricket's Campese. Warne will always be more famous than loved. Tiger's going to have a battle not ruining his rep like Warne did. Admittedly Warne comes off as a bogan while Tiger comes off as humble - I don't know how many women will think that though.

 

Kobe Bryant re-invented himself. Within days he appologised to his wife publicly, did the whole born-again routine, worked hard to become a more team orientated player. Plus nobody does PR better than the NBA.

 

I don't think Magic has recovered from those stories about him. Many people I know have a low opinion of him. He comes across as a genuine guy on TV, which has helped him. The fact he was so open about his HIV helped him. The fact he was repentant helped him. However, I might give you that one because I think a big reason why people liked him still was because he was so damn entertaining.

[Slasher]

Some people have to be very careful about painting in broad strokes. I am a "hardcore" Bret fan and I don't recall ever claiming that he had too much integrity to return to WWE. It makes me feel like because Bret is inconsistent with his words, I am being inconsistent in my own integrity, and that is just not right at all. I am excited about him coming in because it's Bret Hart, and I have no problems with him whoring himself out for a paycheck, because it has nothing to do with my character as a person.

[Bob Morris]

I agree with what Tom wrote earlier. Wrestling is filled with fucked-up individuals and bullshit artists. Bret falls into both categories, but he's not the worst offender.

 

Dynamite Kid was both as well, although I wouldn't call him the worst offender either. And really, so was Bad News Allen (again, though, not the worst). It comes down to "the truth lies somewhere between" and it's up to each person to determine where they think the truth lies.