Not another Montreal thread!

[Andrew is Good]

So yeah, I was watching this deal with Bret Hart, a Q&A. Montreal, as usual, gets brought up, and even Bret doesn't like to dwell on it. But, he went into the main reasoning, which I never really got. I heard so many things, like not wanting to job in Canada, not wanting to lose period, and stuff like that. He also says that he doesn't blame Vince for doing what he did.

The main issue he had was with Shawn Michaels, and it was this reason, and had this not been said, everything would have been completely changed.

After Bret and Shawn got in their catfight as Bret called it, later on, things starting getting better between the two. Bret told Shawn in private that he would never be anything but unprofessional with him in the ring, despite their differences, so if he was going to drop the belt, he can trust him that he would drop the belt. He would also never do anything to hurt Shawn in a match, and protect him like all his opponents (summerizing here, I can watch the video again, but I'm watching TNA right now). Now, what did Shawn say that soured Bret? Shawn said that he would never do the same thing for him.

And that was it. Bret wanted nothing to do with Shawn Michaels, and flat out refused to drop the title to him on principle. He felt that pro wrestling is about trust, and the fact that he knew he couldn't trust Shawn Michaels angered him. He even suggested to lose the belt to the Brooklyn Brawler after the Brawler won a battle royal in Madison Square Garden. He said that he was willing to lose the title to anybody, but it wasn't going to be Shawn. I heard one rumour that he wanted to forfeit the title the next night and Shawn would get it eventually, but he refused to flat out lose it to him, because of Shawn's comment.

It was even suggested in the audience that maybe Shawn could have been attacked, and maybe Ken Shamrock could take his place (which I felt could have been a good idea, and then the next month, Ken loses to Shawn, who then drops it to Austin, and it also builds Shamrock up in the future as a former champion). Bret said he would have done that.

So about losing to Canada, that's false. He didn't want his character to look like a complete loser because of the way he was built up, but he was definitely willing to drop the belt. Like, this wasn't said, but I'm sure Bret would have been for, let's say, Shamrock pinning Bret in the middle of the ring, and Bret giving him a handshake, and then giving his final good byes. Another reason it bothered him was, had Vince asked Bret to do the same to Shawn, Bret never would have done that, based on trust.

So, I guess one of the main points of this thread here is to bring up the importance of trust, and that, they're giving their bodies to each other, and trust is an important factor in pro wrestling, because you can literally kill somebody. It's like what Gorilla Monsoon said in the Unreal World of Professional Wrestling. You could take a wrist lock and literally break somebody's arm. You just don't. And, I never realized, years after it happened, that that was the main reason Bret was bothered by it. It's about trust.

Bret also talked about that if he wanted to bring the belt over to WCW, he couldn't. When Alundra Blaze did that, WWE sued WCW over that. What she did was completely illegal, so he said that even if he wanted to bring the belt over, he legally couldn't.

So, what happened in Montreal was based on trust, and that's why Bret was angered by it, though he doesn't care about it anymore, people just ask him a lot about it. So yeah, I know, not another Montreal thread, but I wanted to bring this up.

[Bobby Womack]

keep in mind that your source is a bret hart interview, hes hardly a beacon of truth

with that out of the way, the way i heard that story was shawn said he wouldnt do the same regarding jobbing to him, not the safety thing, which totally changes things

[Deleted]

May 7, 2009 21:00:48 GMT -5 Bobby Womack said:

keep in mind that your source is a bret hart interview, hes hardly a beacon of truth

with that out of the way, the way i heard that story was shawn said he wouldnt do the same regarding jobbing to him, not the safety thing, which totally changes things

.
.
.
why do you hate Bret Hart?

your always the first post in every thread about him blasting him. how do you know he's "hardly a beacon of truth"?

[Bobby Womack]

May 7, 2009 21:22:43 GMT -5 @awataurne said:

May 7, 2009 21:00:48 GMT -5 Bobby Womack said:

keep in mind that your source is a bret hart interview, hes hardly a beacon of truth

with that out of the way, the way i heard that story was shawn said he wouldnt do the same regarding jobbing to him, not the safety thing, which totally changes things

.
.
.
why do you hate Bret Hart?

your always the first post in every thread about him blasting him. how do you know he's "hardly a beacon of truth"?

i never cared for his ring work and every interview, book, or dvd i see him in makes me care less for him when i see what kind of person he is, but theres many a wrestler i dont appreciate thats just part of life, what really gets my goat is revisionists overrating things that appeal to them in personally, you loved his ring work? great, but please dont try to rewrite history that he set the world on fire or something like that, his run was a flop as was everything in the new gen era, but thats another issue for another thread

its hardly 'blasting' someone to say that they arent the most credible source when theyre speaking of something that theyre so emotionally invested in and have so much bias in, just about every wrestler is an egomaniac and cant be taken at face value on what they say about controversial things about themself

[thedavefather]

Yeah i actually don't recall that safety issue at all. I remeber it being simply Shawn not jobbing to Bret, which frankly i think he just said to piss off Bret. Over the years i have been able to see Bret's side a bit more ( i am a HUGE HBK by the way), frankly i think Vince, Bret and Shawn were all in the wrong in some way. However HBK was cleary the only choice for Bret to lose to, he just came off an epic Hell in the Cell match, and nobody else would have made sense. But shawn shouldn't have said that, Vince should have trusted Bret, and Bret should have just lost to Shawn. Bottom line we are still talking about it YEARS later, soo was it really alll bad.

[Janitor From Mars]

I propose no more threads about Montreal.

Seriously, they just devolve into Bret-bashing threads and we've had quite a bit of that lately from new posters who signed up just to trash Bret.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

May 8, 2009 1:22:49 GMT -5 Janitor From Mars said:

I propose no more threads about Montreal.

Seriously, they just devolve into Bret-bashing threads and we've had quite a bit of that lately from new posters who signed up just to trash Bret.

I like them. Where else could I learn things like Bret Hart isn't a reliable source when it comes to the feelings of Bret Hart?

[El Cokehead del Knife Fight]

May 8, 2009 2:25:58 GMT -5 Cranjis McBasketball said:

May 8, 2009 1:22:49 GMT -5 Janitor From Mars said:

I propose no more threads about Montreal.

Seriously, they just devolve into Bret-bashing threads and we've had quite a bit of that lately from new posters who signed up just to trash Bret.

I like them. Where else could I learn things like Bret Hart isn't a reliable source when it comes to the feelings of Bret Hart?

Clearly random people on the internet know more about his feelings.

[Squirrel Master]

May I add that Bret Hart was recognized as The Excellence of Execution. Shawn Michaels at the time and place of occurrance, was best known as the designated lump-taker for the Midnight Rockers.

[Woooooolhouse!]

Also, Bret never threw anyone he was once friends with through a window. Shawn cannot make that same claim, thus Bret is instantly more trustworthy than Shawn Michaels.

Your witness.

[KofiMania]

May 8, 2009 9:24:37 GMT -5 Squirrel Master said:

May I add that Bret Hart was recognized as The Excellence of Execution. Shawn Michaels at the time and place of occurrance, was best known as the designated lump-taker for the Midnight Rockers.

In 1997? I don't think so.

[KofiMania]

May 7, 2009 20:21:04 GMT -5 Andrew is Good said:

So yeah, I was watching this deal with Bret Hart, a Q&A. Montreal, as usual, gets brought up, and even Bret doesn't like to dwell on it. But, he went into the main reasoning, which I never really got. I heard so many things, like not wanting to job in Canada, not wanting to lose period, and stuff like that. He also says that he doesn't blame Vince for doing what he did.

The main issue he had was with Shawn Michaels, and it was this reason, and had this not been said, everything would have been completely changed.

After Bret and Shawn got in their catfight as Bret called it, later on, things starting getting better between the two. Bret told Shawn in private that he would never be anything but unprofessional with him in the ring, despite their differences, so if he was going to drop the belt, he can trust him that he would drop the belt. He would also never do anything to hurt Shawn in a match, and protect him like all his opponents (summerizing here, I can watch the video again, but I'm watching TNA right now). Now, what did Shawn say that soured Bret? Shawn said that he would never do the same thing for him.

And that was it. Bret wanted nothing to do with Shawn Michaels, and flat out refused to drop the title to him on principle. He felt that pro wrestling is about trust, and the fact that he knew he couldn't trust Shawn Michaels angered him. He even suggested to lose the belt to the Brooklyn Brawler after the Brawler won a battle royal in Madison Square Garden. He said that he was willing to lose the title to anybody, but it wasn't going to be Shawn. I heard one rumour that he wanted to forfeit the title the next night and Shawn would get it eventually, but he refused to flat out lose it to him, because of Shawn's comment.

It was even suggested in the audience that maybe Shawn could have been attacked, and maybe Ken Shamrock could take his place (which I felt could have been a good idea, and then the next month, Ken loses to Shawn, who then drops it to Austin, and it also builds Shamrock up in the future as a former champion). Bret said he would have done that.

So about losing to Canada, that's false. He didn't want his character to look like a complete loser because of the way he was built up, but he was definitely willing to drop the belt. Like, this wasn't said, but I'm sure Bret would have been for, let's say, Shamrock pinning Bret in the middle of the ring, and Bret giving him a handshake, and then giving his final good byes. Another reason it bothered him was, had Vince asked Bret to do the same to Shawn, Bret never would have done that, based on trust.

So, I guess one of the main points of this thread here is to bring up the importance of trust, and that, they're giving their bodies to each other, and trust is an important factor in pro wrestling, because you can literally kill somebody. It's like what Gorilla Monsoon said in the Unreal World of Professional Wrestling. You could take a wrist lock and literally break somebody's arm. You just don't. And, I never realized, years after it happened, that that was the main reason Bret was bothered by it. It's about trust.

Bret also talked about that if he wanted to bring the belt over to WCW, he couldn't. When Alundra Blaze did that, WWE sued WCW over that. What she did was completely illegal, so he said that even if he wanted to bring the belt over, he legally couldn't.

So, what happened in Montreal was based on trust, and that's why Bret was angered by it, though he doesn't care about it anymore, people just ask him a lot about it. So yeah, I know, not another Montreal thread, but I wanted to bring this up.

He means he wouldn't return the favor as far as jobbing to him. He's not talking about not being protective in the ring.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

May 8, 2009 10:31:08 GMT -5 Woooooolhouse! said:

Also, Bret never threw anyone he was once friends with through a window. Shawn cannot make that same claim, thus Bret is instantly more trustworthy than Shawn Michaels.

Your witness.

Neither did HBK, Jannety jumped through the window trying to escape.

[Mothman]

May 8, 2009 15:08:47 GMT -5 Cranjis McBasketball said:

May 8, 2009 10:31:08 GMT -5 Woooooolhouse! said:

Also, Bret never threw anyone he was once friends with through a window. Shawn cannot make that same claim, thus Bret is instantly more trustworthy than Shawn Michaels.

Your witness.

Neither did HBK, Jannety jumped through the window trying to escape.

Just like Michaels jumped through the Jeritron.

[neilfrazier]

I'm bored with this Montreal stuff. If both sides were open and truthful, and Bret simply jobbed to Steve Austin none of this would have happened.

[MolotovMocktail]

Neither did HBK, Jannety jumped through the window trying to escape.

ARE YOU BLIND?!?

Yeah i actually don't recall that safety issue at all. I remeber it being simply Shawn not jobbing to Bret, which frankly i think he just said to piss off Bret. Over the years i have been able to see Bret's side a bit more ( i am a HUGE HBK by the way), frankly i think Vince, Bret and Shawn were all in the wrong in some way. However HBK was cleary the only choice for Bret to lose to, he just came off an epic Hell in the Cell match, and nobody else would have made sense. But shawn shouldn't have said that, Vince should have trusted Bret, and Bret should have just lost to Shawn. Bottom line we are still talking about it YEARS later, soo was it really alll bad.

There were actually a few people: Undertaker wasn't even on the card that night. Bret could have beaten him, and then the next night on Raw, Shawn could have won the title from Taker due to Kane's interference (to defuse the thought that Taker couldn't be allowed to win HIAC in order to start the Kane feud). The Hart Foundation was also engaged in a mini-feud with the Nation of Domination at the time, so it could have been Faarooq. And as someone suggested, why not Ken Shamrock? And of course, there was always Bret's old rival Stone Cold (though they were probably wanting to save his win until Mania).

[r.]

Let me tell what i think of this whole ugly mess i....................



stop this thread! ring the f***ing bell!

[corndog]

I know I am a Hart mark, but I can see this point. I have watched both sides talk about Montreal, but the part I have noticed that strengthens this point is how they talk about the match itself. Bret Hart said it was a pretty good match, and says it makes it even sader how it ended. So obviously cared about how good the match was and it can't be a good match if one side is selfish. Micheals said he was more worried about the ending, didn't care about the match, and didn't think it was a very good match. I understand Micheals had a job to do, even though it benefited him in the end, but it just seems very unprofessional to not care about the match. Ultimately I think all sides are wrong and Bret should have dropped the belt to Shawn. Vince didn't do it to spite Bret, I think he did it because it made sense and was the best for the company. Micheals and Bret were head to head in the company and when Bret left he needed to pass the torch to him. Also had to have this match, the company was struggling, this was one of their biggest ppvs and his last chance to have this dream match one more time.

[Lancers]

I propose we create a new wrestling board forum page. We'll call it "The Montreal Brand Extension Batista Photoshop and NWO Reunion Forum Presented by Green Kane Mask"

[Magician under the moonlight]

These threads make me look bad.