Who's side do you take

[Guest Loss4Words]

1997 for the WWF had very meaningful angles though, and the fans bought into everything because the stories were so brilliantly told. Shawn Michaels was inciting riots in some cities. Bret Hart was causing fans to think and be introspective by questioning the value system in America, and while he was booed for the most part, there were many fans that actually agreed with Bret and there were many (civilized) debates over the subject among fans waiting in line in various arenas, as documented in Wrestling With Shadows. Steve Austin symbolized the common man and was on his way to superstardom. I can't think of another year in US wrestling history with such clearly defined and humanized characters.

[Guest Youth N Asia]

Bret agreed to drop the title the next night on Raw but somehow no one ever remembers that. WTF?

Bret said he'd hand over the title on Raw. But he didn't say if he would give them the belt and leave, or job out.

 

Bret should have agreed to job in the first place.

 

BRET: "But I'm a 5 time champ..."

 

Yeah, that's only cause Vince said so.

[Guest godthedog]

Bret said he'd hand over the title on Raw. But he didn't say if he would give them the belt and leave, or job out.

the plan was for him to voluntarily relinquish the belt and give a little goodbye speech. as far as i know, vince never considered jobbing him out to anybody else.

[Guest Jonathan Barber]

I take neither's side. Both have their strong points and weak points. Bret has proved that he will always be a gentleman. McMahon, though, had a mutli-million dollar corporation that was at the time being wrecked. He had to do something, and until you're him and have that responsibility, you don't have that right to say that he was wrong.

 

Again, I side with neither one because each has their points.

[Guest dreamer420]

Bret said he'd hand over the title on Raw. But he didn't say if he would give them the belt and leave, or job out.

the plan was for him to voluntarily relinquish the belt and give a little goodbye speech. as far as i know, vince never considered jobbing him out to anybody else.

That is what should have happened then. A little loyalty by Vince and this whole fucking mess would have been avoided.

[Guest RedJed]

I can't side with Bret or Vince either. They're both equally guilty and responsible for what ended up happening. Bret could have compromised, as could have Vince. But both (for valid reasons) didn't want to do what the other wanted from them. Its as simple as that.

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

Recently I read that Bret was willing to postpone his WCW debut for up to a month, to drop the belt to a non-Shawn Michaels in a non-Canadian location. So, for the moment, I side with Bret.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

my opinion summed up short and sweet. Wasn't be around until Dec? So since he was supposed to job the title at the following PPV. I side with Bret since the fact he was going to stick around longer, thus making it a shoot.

[Guest Si82]

Bret said he'd hand over the title on Raw. But he didn't say if he would give them the belt and leave, or job out.

the plan was for him to voluntarily relinquish the belt and give a little goodbye speech. as far as i know, vince never considered jobbing him out to anybody else.

That is what should have happened then. A little loyalty by Vince and this whole fucking mess would have been avoided.

Exactly, and that is why I take Bret's side. Bret was loyal and I don't see why he couldn't have just relinquished the belt and done his goodbye speech. Particually when you consider the shit that Michaels had pulled over jobs and losing titles over the years.

[Guest wwefan4ever_brethartrulz_18]

I can understand what Vince did, under the pressure he was.

But Vince lied to Bret! That's the whole point!

 

He could have said: 'Bret, you're losing tonight and that's final". But he told Bret "Whatever you want".

 

So I take Bret's side.

[Guest FeArHaVoC]

Didn't Bret threaten to jump to WCW with the I-C belt in 1992?

That was Vince's Blow job, errrr, Shawn Michaels in 93'

[Guest godthedog]

Bret said he'd hand over the title on Raw. But he didn't say if he would give them the belt and leave, or job out.

the plan was for him to voluntarily relinquish the belt and give a little goodbye speech. as far as i know, vince never considered jobbing him out to anybody else.

That is what should have happened then. A little loyalty by Vince and this whole fucking mess would have been avoided.

Exactly, and that is why I take Bret's side. Bret was loyal and I don't see why he couldn't have just relinquished the belt and done his goodbye speech. Particually when you consider the shit that Michaels had pulled over jobs and losing titles over the years.

well...to be fair, you can't have your world champion relinquish the belt when he's just about to leave the company, cause your title becomes essentially worthless. your next champion has to BEAT him, so that he'll have some credibility. if your next champion gets the belt after person X gives it up, one can always say, "well, he never beat person X for it so he's not the real champion," and then you're screwed.

 

stuff like this actually makes me wonder whether bret was really telling the truth about giving up the belt. he apparently said he'd job it out to anybody, anytime anywhere except to shawn in canada, but the final plan became to just give up the belt in a speech? what the hell? now MAYBE vince would've gone along with this, since he'd done it earlier that year with michaels, but bret is way too fucking smart not to realize that those kinds of moves seriously devalue a world title.

[Guest dreamer420]

If you'd go back and watch Wrestling With Shadows you'd see that Bret offered a couple of solutions to Vince and they were:

 

1) To have the match with HBK end in a schmozz and then drop the WWF title after giving a goodbye speech on Raw. (I don't see a problem with that, especially from the company that let Michaels give a "losing my smile" speech just so he would have to job to Bret)

 

2. To drop the title on Raw the next night (from Ottawa no less)

 

Either of those solutions would have been better than the biggest screwjob in pro wrestling history.

[Guest HartFan86]

If you really want to be fair...all the shit Vince let HBK get away with for years should automatically have people side with Bret.

[Guest dreamer420]

That is my point. Vince McMahon bent over for Michaels for years, but someone like Bret is going to get screwed. Vince got what he deserved though as the person he chose to side with was crippled and useless for the next 5 years anyway.