|
Thing is though, that's forgetting all the overcompensating they did for years and all the desperate attempts to control the narrative and babyface themselves in the whole thing that failed miserably.
|
Yeah, Vince tried to make himself this sympathetic figure in the wake of it. I mean, you could try to make the case that Vince knew exactly what he was doing and just planting the seeds for the heel run, but that's sort of like saying the whole plan was always Daniel Bryan.
One thing I can be convinced of is that Vince wanted himself out there. That's obviously why he was out there. Maybe to babyface himself as "Pop" standing in front of the store? I don't know why he thought that would work. Maybe he just wanted a massive scoop coming out of it? |
Quote:
|
That's the stupidest logic anyway. Nash had no legal right to refuse anything his employer asked, Bret did. The "Oh, I'd lose in America!" completely misses the dynamic of WCW bidding so high specifically for the Canadian market. Wrestling is a value-driven game. Nash showed his value in America during his title reign in 1995, so what argument, legal or subjective, does he have anyway?
|
I'm a huge Bret Hart mark, but looking back after 20 years and knowing what I know today, Bret should of done that job no questions asked. it was the best thing to do for future. Build HBK to build Austin and it really built Shamrock in between all that as well.
you hear of that planned DQ run in ending that Bret thought was happening. That's the dumbest thing ever to have on that PPV. the feud needed to end there. as a fan though, the whole screwjob and aftermath was the coolest shit to ever happen as long as I've been watching. what a time to be a fan |
Loose Cannon,
1. He had creative control in his contract 2. He was an independent contractor, not an employee. 3. Vince was breaching his contract 4. He had 3 more weeks on his WWF contract. This is why he didnt appear on Nitro the next night 5. He said that he would lose to anyone including besides Shawn in Montreal 6. He said he would lose to Shawn if Shawn put him over first because Shawn had disrepected him. |
yes I know the background of it all. I'm not saying Bret didn't have the right to refuse the ending. Vince gave him control and he used his card. that's fine.
but from a business standpoint in a wrestling industry, Bret's leaving and they need to build Shawn for the next guy. they already penciled in Shawn to take the title at Survivor Series long before the PPV. They put the title back on Bret at Summerslam to build to the eventual showdown. Bret has said numerous times he was ready and willing to put Shawn over and drop the belt, but he heard or caught Shawn saying he would never put Bret over again and that pissed Bret off and that's when he decided he wouldn't lose to Shawn. so right there it's personal vs business. and that's where this whole got messed up. anyway back to my original point. Bret was done in 3 weeks after SS. and yes they could of had Bret drop the title on Raw or whatever, but Survivor Series was the main show. you got to do it there in my opinion. to me, it doesn't mean as much on Raw. |
Quote:
|
The CyNick to respond to this thread after Survivor Series. Stay tuned!
|
Think in terms of doing the right thing morally, as opposed to "what's best for business."
Think in terms of doing the right thing morally, as opposed to "what's best for business."
I get that many people believe that Bret jobbing cleanly to Shawn that night was the best thing to do from a business perspective, but let's consider a few things: 1) Vince and Bret almost had a father-son type relationship. They were THAT close. 2) Shawn was a complete dick to Bret and acted unprofessionally towards him in the past. 3) Shawn wasn't being built as a badass heel that could destroy everyone anyways (i.e. his 'fluke' win over Taker at Survivor Series due to Kane interference). Given all of this, I think the best solution here would have been the Bret-Undertaker scenario. Even if Bret wasn't under contract, Bret had enough of a strong moral character to 'give back' to the WWE. HBK didn't need to go over Bret cleanly because he was being booked as a cowardly pussy anyways (i.e. his victory over Taker at Survivor Series). |
Shawn made it personal. I just annoys me that people ignore those facts. Everyone makes it out to seem like Bret was leaving to WCW the next day - he was not!
People say "oh bret didnt do what his boss asked him to do". If you listen to the audio from Montreal (when bret wears a wire) Vince NEVER suggests dropping the belt. Surely he would have had tried one more time. If you are contracted to a company - you are not an employee. You have to protect your own business interests. Vince and Bret had a deal where Bret could veto anything he didnt want to do in his last 30 days. He did that. Vince broke the deal. Shawn's comment about not ever putting Bret over after Bret, despite all the problems, says "hey, I will put your over for the belt. You are safe in the ring with me." |
Heyman,
I would have booked it as a run in by Austin and taker. This would lead to DX coming down followed by the Hart foundation. The next night on Raw they could do a fatal four way with Bret having Austin in the Sharpshooter, Shawn Super kicks Bret, Shawn gets choke slammed on top of Bret. Taker cover both of them. This leaves us with "who is the champion ?" |
Quote:
|
morally, Shawn was a huge POS and didn't deserve anything he got around that time. if that was today he probably would of been fired in like 1995
i believe they threw around a bunch of ideas. one was Kenny Shamrock winning the belt from Bret before SS and then losing it to Shawn. I think Bret actually came up with this one |
I don't blame Bret at all. If he lost at Survivor Series and then snuck over to WCW, he would be heading over as a loser and a coward. Kayfabe wasn't what it was, but it's still an industry that runs largely based off perception. The four-way drop at the next PPV would make sense, but I can imagine why Vince would feel a bit nervous about it.
Working some sort of screwjob angle actually makes perfect sense. I don't believe it was a work, except for on Vince's part setting himself up as a babyface in his own mind or whatever, but it actually does make sense. And this might get "lame" from a lot of people, but doing a phantom title change at a house show makes sense to me too. Bret wins at Montreal and then Shawn magically wins it a house show. Maybe even Bret does a proper job dark? You could go from Undertaker to Shawn, but that would be flipping it around a bit. |
Quote:
But yes, you're right. Nash had no trouble putting over the top guys he was competing with for the top spot. He put over Taker clean and made Shawn look like a boss. It would the equivalent of Bret putting over Austin and HBK. I don't think Bret wanted to do that. He wanted to be protected on the way out. |
Quote:
|
I like how you sign that off leaving all of the wrong in Bret’s lap. Maybe Bischoff sold him on the false promise of leading the WCW march into Canada, and Bret was protecting his/ WCW’s interests in good faith.
|
How about Bret is a little woman and they should have had Shamrock shoot on Bret, have that little crybaby tap out and boom problem solved.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But in trying to determine who was "right" in a situation, I don't think you can argue that one side was dilusional, therefore their actions are correct. You can use that to explain "why" they did what they did, but doesn't make it "right". To put it another way, it's not like Canada was a fledgling market for WWE before Bret. If anything WCW could have/should have used Hogan if they really wanted to make a dent in Canada. Historically he's the biggest draw in the country. Bret really became a big deal those few months he was doing the pro Canada schtick (which he hated apparently) and after Survivor Series when he was positioned as a victim. But that didn't last long. All that to say, Vince didn't act perfectly, but I also feel like his back was against the wall because of the limited options Bret was providing the company. |
Quote:
If his status as a Canadian hero (which nobody here ever saw him as) was so vital, you would think from day one of his signing Eric would have announced a multi week tour of the country. The fact that nothing even close to that happened showed a Canadian invasion by WCW was never part of the plans. As was mentioned above, is it possible Eric mocked up a bunch of posters showing WCW bringing Nitro to Winnipeg and Regina? Maybe. But I doubt it. More likely as Eric has intimated in many interviews, he wanted Bret to come in and be the workhorse for Thunder because most of his other top guys didn't want to work that show. Is it possible Bret was acting on the idea that he needed to be protected in Canada or his next deal would drop to $100k downside? Maybe, but if he did, he's an idiot. Don't think that makes him right. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Problem with that is you let Bret leave the territory without putting over his main rival. It leaves a void. Similar to when Hogan left, he didn't put over the next big star (ie Bret) so it really hurt the company trying to establish Bret as the to guy. And then the other problem is they clearly wanted to get to HBK v Austin, so if you have Taker win the title and drop it quickly to Shawn it hurts Taker and makes Shawn look like a paper champion. Whereas at least with how it all went down it got heat on Shawn and ultimately Vince, which was a catalyst for future success. I don't think Austin v McMahon works as well without Survivor Series. |
My take from this thread. If Bret would have just fucking dropped to Shawn, Owen would still be alive.
|
Also if Bret was so hot about reasonable creative control why in the hell didn't he secure that in his WCW deal, and if he did secure that why couldn't he execute in a way that ..... oh Hogan.
|
Quote:
|
Had Montreal not happen, would we have still gotten the Mr. McMahon character and the eventual Austin v McMahon feud? I wonder how history would have changed?
|
Vince would have eventually done it. He had done heel work in Memphis before.
|
Quote:
Regardless of whether or not Eric had planned to go to Canada or not (he clearly didn't), the argument is that he should have, and that Bret was a key to getting there, because he was a draw there. He doesn't need to be the biggest draw of all-time to be that. Not wanting to lose in Canada is a fair decision to make, because that's how the business worked back then. We're still years away from Austin refusing to work with Billy Gunn because he had common sense. You're applying hindsight to a situation where none of the players had it. |
Actually the whole thing is Vince's fault.
I don't think there is anyone in the history of the business who got away with as much as Shawn did. I don't know if HBK really was McMahon's boytoy on the side, but it's baffling how a control freak like Vince allows Shawn so much sway. Maybe with business in the shitter, he was worried about Shawn jumping ship if he tried to reign him in. If Vince had put his foot down squashed shawn's bullshit early, and tried to help shawn with his problems and get him to act more professionally, maybe Bret would have been more open to the idea of dropping the title to him. |
It's a point I made earlier, but I'll re-iterate:
1) Shawn Michaels wasn't being booked as a dominant heel champion. He was being booked as a cowardly chicken shit heel. 2) The WWE's long term plan was to push Austin to the next level. Therefore, I don't think it would have mattered that much had Bret vs. Shawn at the 1997 Survivor Series ended in a DQ (i.e. simultaneous Hart Foundation/DX interference). Shawn going strong over Bret would have been nullified a month later anyways where Taker beat the living shit out of Shawn only to lose due to Kane interference. Bret putting over Shamrock would not have been good for business (i.e. Shamrock was too green and needed to be built up more), and so Bret jobbing to Taker on RAW was clearly the best scenario. From the interviews that I read, Bret didn't have a problem jobbing in Canada. He simply had a problem jobbing to Shawn due to the lack of respect. Bret had enough integrity to "give back" to the WWE and would never have jumped to WCW with the belt. Shawn going over 'strong' while Taker being a transitional champion wouldn't have ultimately mattered, as the long term plan all along was to make Austin look like a million bucks. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
All this talk of how Bret didn't give Vince an option, or that Bret would be leaving a void not losing to the right guy is bollocks, because he offered to drop it to Michaels and Austin at different times. |
Lol unban CyNick
|
Lol his reason for getting banned is amazing tho
|
Why was he banned?
|
|
Why was he harassing triple a?
|
Lol who knows
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®