Guest HartFan86 Posted June 1, 2002 Report Posted June 1, 2002 I was watching this again (I taped it) and noticed something very...well, odd. The following is what HBK said talking about Montreal: "I was asked to do something by the man that has given me the oppurtunity to have everything I have had in my life. That has stuck with me and he asked me to do it and I did it. And I'm not sorry for it." Now, right before Shawn says "I'm not sorry for it", the part of the interview cuts and you see a black flash. I slowed this down and you can clearly see Shawn's body movements change from what they were before the cut with the black flash. So my point is this: If you have read "Foley is Good", you know about his experience with 20/20 when the fucked around with what he said and moved it around to make him look bad. I'm thinking "Did the editors make Shawn say something that would have him say he's not sorry for, take that clip, and stick it at the end of him talking about Montreal or did Shawn just blab about something and they wanted to speed up and cut him just to say that last part?" Just an observation...
Guest cabbageboy Posted June 1, 2002 Report Posted June 1, 2002 Hell, Michaels said he was in on the screwjob so I really could care less if he was sorry for it or not. It's not a big enough deal to alter tape over.
Guest Posted June 1, 2002 Report Posted June 1, 2002 Hell, his Pain Killers probably kicked in and he just "blab" about something.
Guest HartFan86 Posted June 1, 2002 Report Posted June 1, 2002 Hell, Michaels said he was in on the screwjob so I really could care less if he was sorry for it or not. It's not a big enough deal to alter tape over. ...And he said that he wasn't in on it in the RF Shoot INT. I wouldn't be surprised if the WWF made him say he was in on it...but fuck if I know anymore. I just figured I would post what I saw.
Guest Posted June 1, 2002 Report Posted June 1, 2002 I think most who seen the HBK Shoot knew he was lying. He stumbled over his own words a few times and contradicted himself. Not only about the "Screw Job" either. Stuff like Jobbing to Bret, Etc.
Guest Posted June 2, 2002 Report Posted June 2, 2002 WHO GIVES A FUCK IT HAPPENED FIVE YEARS AGO GET OVER IT!
Guest Posted June 2, 2002 Report Posted June 2, 2002 WHO GIVES A FUCK IT HAPPENED FIVE YEARS AGO GET OVER IT! So "History" Can't be talked about?
Guest Posted June 2, 2002 Report Posted June 2, 2002 Well of course it can..But my point is, is that this particular piece in our history is talked more amongst us than non-wrestling fans talk about for example, the Monica Lewinsky Scandal that happened much sooner than Montreal, but actually meant something to the history of our country and was very controversial. The American public can move on from scandals with presidents, world trade center bombings, terrorist activities, but somehow, someway, the American wrestling public jsut can't seem to get over Montreal. What's done is done. Bret Hart is NEVER coming back to the WWF. Vince, did what he neeeded to do. What makes the difference if Shawn was in on it or not? What difference does it make, as a matter of fact, if ANYONE was in on it or not? Would it have made a difference? NO! Vince is the boss, he was going to do what he needed to do, and it was his decision to let a select group of people know what was going to happen and the rest would just have to deal with it. I'm sure Vince knew he was going to make a controversial decision back then, but I'm also pretty sure he didn't think people would still be talking about it 5 years later either.
Guest RetroRob215 Posted June 2, 2002 Report Posted June 2, 2002 Bret Hart is NEVER coming back to the WWF. You obviously weren't around in the mid-90's because if you were you would know, "ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN IN THE WWF(E)!!!!!!!!". Seriously though, I wouldn't say that Bret will NEVER come back to the WWE. Stranger things have happened...
Guest Posted June 2, 2002 Report Posted June 2, 2002 If it wasn't for "Wrestling w/ Shadows" then we probably wouldn't be talking about it today. We all would be believing everything Vince said and most would think Bret was just a "whinner" making excuses. If it wasn't for that Documentary then we all wouldn't know the "True" side to Bret's Story. This topic will never go away. You just need to deal with it.
Guest Posted June 2, 2002 Report Posted June 2, 2002 Well this is the way I'm trying to deal with it...And really, I guess my intelligent question to this is more or less WHY is everyone still talking about it? What's left to discuss about it? And as for Bret not coming back to the WWF, I meant as a wrestler. I'm 99.9% sure that would never happen, unless it's in an extremely limited role, thanks to a concussion by a certain bald-headed idiot, Bret is also old, and unlike ANOTHER bald-headed idiot, he knows when his body wouldn't be able to take more punishment than it does... Which brings me to an interesting thought, although extremely off-subject... Why does it seem to be that wrestling's athletes seem to last longer in their careers than athletes in any other sport? We all know how physical wrestling can be, but I've seen basketball and baseball players (both sports physically much weaker than wrestling, especially baseball..basketball is mostly about endurance) retire sooner than a lot, if not most wrestlers. Football players retire in their late 30's, baseball players retire in thier mid 30's or late 30's, basketball players retire in their early 40's...Wrestlers...STill keep going at age 50? Seems to me like Mick Foley was the only wrestler with any common sense to live a normal, healthy life after a successful career to me. But this is WAY off-topic, so I'll let fearhavoc answer my questions about montreal. gracias
Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly Posted June 2, 2002 Report Posted June 2, 2002 Wrestling isn't a sport though. In sports you have to better than the guy you are matched up against. Wrestling is performance, people can make you look good.
Guest Posted June 2, 2002 Report Posted June 2, 2002 That doesn't change things from being physical and taking a toll on your body.
Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly Posted June 2, 2002 Report Posted June 2, 2002 I never said it didn't take a toll on your body. Sports are competition oriented, wrestling is performance oriented. In sports, the wear and tear gives you less of a chance of winning, in wrestling it hurts your performance. An athlete that can't compete is pretty much worthless in sports. In wrestling, your injuries can be protected better because you have a degree of control over what will happen to your body. Half of the wrestlers in the WWF wear knee braces. They can do things that will minimize the impact of their injuries. Austin broke his neck, now he doesn't do anything that can result in him being dropped on his head. Take a look at Kirby Puckett. The guy was going blind so he had to retire. Stan Hansen supposedly was blind as a bat, but he was able to wrestle. The reason why is because nobody was trying to expose his shortcomings. Everyone was trying to compensate for them. In sports, if someone has a weakness (age, injuries) you try to exploit it because it's a competition. In wrestling you try to compensate for the shortcomings because it's a performance.
Guest RetroRob215 Posted June 2, 2002 Report Posted June 2, 2002 Seems to me like Mick Foley was the only wrestler with any common sense to live a normal, healthy life after a successful career to me. Healthy?? I think not. Mick only retired before most of the other wrestlers because he took more bumps in his career than any other wrestler ever has. Mick's career may have been shorter than some guys, but it has also caused more degeneration of his body than those other guys.
Guest Posted June 2, 2002 Report Posted June 2, 2002 OK, maybe healthy was the wrong word there, but I still had a point that he had enough common sense to retire when he should have..
Guest bravesfan Posted June 2, 2002 Report Posted June 2, 2002 OK, maybe healthy was the wrong word there, but I still had a point that he had enough common sense to retire when he should have.. Who knows if THAT's true. I mean, with the amount of sick bumps Mick took at EVERY show, be it PPV, TV or even House Show, probably caused his body to age/break down faster than others who have slowed down the bumps. This equals longer careers (Flair, Hogan, etc.)
Guest saturnmark4life Posted June 2, 2002 Report Posted June 2, 2002 Foley did say in beyond the mat something about taking the risks now, retiring early and spending time with his family, not turning into too much a joke i think.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now