Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,425
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Aug 19, 2016 14:02:50 GMT -5
Why is 'Time Honoured Tradition' only important when someone was being asked to lose to Shawn? The guy wiped his backside with 'time honoured tradition' whenever he was booked to lose to anyone outside of his circle of friends. Vince gave Bret a creative control clause where he could pick the manner of his departure then reneged when he realised that meant he couldn't force Bret to job to someone who'd been flat out abusive toward him and his family, just like he has tried to do every time a contract doesn't favour him. Trying to sic the Undertaker (Someone who sided with Bret over Montreal and whose actual fighting ability is largely keyfabe) on Bret in an attempt to physically bully him into surrendering a legal right would have ended in a lawsuit with Bret vanishing from TV while champion and going to WCW while suing the WWF for breach of contract. When you leave a company, you leave on your back putting over the guy who is going to continue working in that company. When it came for Michaels to retire, he went out losing to The Undertaker, so Michaels fulfilled that obligation. I agree Bret should have laid down. But you can't use Michaels losing to the Undertaker 15 years later in your argument. At this point, he was still the guy who had dropped more titles without losing than anyone, who outright changed the result of a match Bulldog dedicated to his dying sister in his hometown to win a belt he didn't give a crap about at an event only British people would see and immediately made a joke of. At the time, I wouldn't have trusted HBK to do anything business related.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Aug 19, 2016 14:05:40 GMT -5
Considering the way the WWF and specifically Shawn had screwed around Bret for almost a year, I don't blame him. I know wrestling is a work, but there is still the basic respect of a fellow employee that Shawn never showed anyone. Moreover, Vince, in his wisdom, didn't stop fanning that real life feud between the two because he like real heat, and it blew up in his face.
Vince told Bret in Cincinnati in that he couldn't keep him and to negotiate with WCW, which was in the begining of Sept, so why did he still have the belt in Novemeber?
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Aug 19, 2016 14:08:36 GMT -5
I fully believe that Vince had planned for Hart to lose to Michaels in Canada to hurt Bret as a draw there, or so he thought.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Aug 19, 2016 14:15:00 GMT -5
Why is 'Time Honoured Tradition' only important when someone was being asked to lose to Shawn? The guy wiped his backside with 'time honoured tradition' whenever he was booked to lose to anyone outside of his circle of friends. Vince gave Bret a creative control clause where he could pick the manner of his departure then reneged when he realised that meant he couldn't force Bret to job to someone who'd been flat out abusive toward him and his family, just like he has tried to do every time a contract doesn't favour him. Trying to sic the Undertaker (Someone who sided with Bret over Montreal and whose actual fighting ability is largely keyfabe) on Bret in an attempt to physically bully him into surrendering a legal right would have ended in a lawsuit with Bret vanishing from TV while champion and going to WCW while suing the WWF for breach of contract. When you leave a company, you leave on your back putting over the guy who is going to continue working in that company. When it came for Michaels to retire, he went out losing to The Undertaker, so Michaels fulfilled that obligation. That is claptrap, most workers don't job in some grand way on their way out the door, hell, two all time greats (and Chris Benoit, but that's more on WCW than him) left WCW as champion without putting anyone over for the belt, but Flair (who left with the physical WCW title and put it on WWF TV) and Hogan never get criticised for violating 'the traditions' of wrestling. The WWF spent 1995-6 putting Shawn Michaels over all comers in a way that Roman Reigns would find excessive, and come 1997, he was actively trying to get himself fired to go to WCW to be with Hall and Nash, not planning to job out the door, not planning to help the company that had given him the world (for zero return) in any way. The only reason he did the right thing in the 90s was because he had no choice, they gave him a full time babysitter and would have sued him into oblivion had he done what he wanted to do and just noshowed. Despite his 'retirement', the WWF kept him under contract, not out of the goodness of their hearts but because they didn't trust him not to turn up on WCW TV the moment he's legally entitled to.
|
|
|
Post by Mid-Carder on Aug 19, 2016 15:34:08 GMT -5
Somebody (probably The Undertaker) makes Bret realise he is acting like a whiny diva, and in an epiphany moment 'The Hitman' decides to drop his fake sports belt in the time honoured tradition. Bret had creative control in the contract Vince begged him to sign and he had every right to turn down their suggestion. What's more, if Bret Hart says he'll job the next night on Raw, he'll job the next night on Raw. He's the standard-bearer of the professional company man and deserved more respect from Vince.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Aug 19, 2016 16:14:57 GMT -5
Somebody (probably The Undertaker) makes Bret realise he is acting like a whiny diva, and in an epiphany moment 'The Hitman' decides to drop his fake sports belt in the time honoured tradition. f***ING. THANK. YOU. I'm a big Bret fan, but he was a little bitch with the whole thing. Refusing to lose in Montreal? What if..let's say...Daniel Bryan ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to lose the title in Nashville? Same f***ing thing. The main problem according to Bret's book was that Shawn told him he wasn't going to work safe, or something to that effect. Plus he had creative control. He had every right to veto any idea he didn't like. As for it being in Canada, would Hogan lose to the Iron Sheik after he's stuck an American flag up his nose or something? Bryan losing in his hometown is not the same, since nationalism wasn't a part of it.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Aug 19, 2016 16:32:54 GMT -5
I fully believe that Vince had planned for Hart to lose to Michaels in Canada to hurt Bret as a draw there, or so he thought. That's a good point, Hall and Nash like to drone on about how Bret cared about wins and losses, titles and how he looked when jobbing like he thought it was real, but by being a 'mark for himself', looking after his value in the Canadian market he kept himself valuable and was able to walk into WCW on a bigger contract than Hall, Nash, Sting, even Randy Savage.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 19, 2016 16:45:37 GMT -5
1- Put Taker in the match and have him pin HBK for the win. If Bret said no, give Taker some extra tough tape for his fists.
2- Have Bret retain at Survivor Series, but have HBK interfere a night later on RAW and cost him the title. Have Bret say "I'm sick of HBK's shit. I quit"
3- Don't put the title on Bret at Summerslam at all. Vince must have known he couldn't afford to keep Bret, so why bother making him the champ?
4- Have someone do a run-in and throw the match out on a DQ or double DQ. Bret can then drop the title to someone the next night.
5- Have someone attack Bret before the match on HBK's behalf and show him to be injured. Announce that if Bret can't defend the title, it will be awarded to HBK. Bret makes it out, but is clearly hurt. Despite a valiant effort, he loses the title, but retains some dignity in defeat.
6- Have someone attack HBK before the match. Someone else takes his place and wins the title. HBK can win it a few weeks later.
7- Bret turns down WCW, despite the higher offer he got from them, knowing they'd book him like shit and ruin his career. He wins the the match and retains the title.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Aug 19, 2016 18:14:37 GMT -5
Somebody (probably The Undertaker) makes Bret realise he is acting like a whiny diva, and in an epiphany moment 'The Hitman' decides to drop his fake sports belt in the time honoured tradition. f***ING. THANK. YOU. I'm a big Bret fan, but he was a little bitch with the whole thing. Refusing to lose in Montreal? What if..let's say...Daniel Bryan ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to lose the title in Nashville? Same f***ing thing. In the words of Paul Heyman 'f*** you. My title, my investment, my ass. You're dropping the title.'
|
|
Unocal 76
King Koopa
Providing The Finest Oil
Posts: 12,687
|
Post by Unocal 76 on Aug 19, 2016 18:22:56 GMT -5
3- Don't put the title on Bret at Summerslam at all. Vince must have known he couldn't afford to keep Bret, so why bother making him the champ? They could have just made the Hell in a Cell match at Badd Blood '97 for the title and still done what they did. If anything, the Kane debut/finish would have added more to that storyline.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Aug 19, 2016 18:30:14 GMT -5
f***ING. THANK. YOU. I'm a big Bret fan, but he was a little bitch with the whole thing. Refusing to lose in Montreal? What if..let's say...Daniel Bryan ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to lose the title in Nashville? Same f***ing thing. In the words of Paul Heyman 'f*** you. My title, my investment, my ass. You're dropping the title.' Funny that people would bring up Paul Heyman in a topic about a promoter blatantly and unapologetically reneging on a deal struck with a talent then undeservedly playing the victim about the whole situation. If Heyman didn't want talent going to WCW, he should have damn well paid them, and likewise, if Vince wanted to dictate Bret's booking he shouldn't have signed a legal contract entitling Bret to control his own departure, it's that simple.
|
|
|
Post by -Lithium- on Aug 19, 2016 18:46:39 GMT -5
In the words of Paul Heyman 'f*** you. My title, my investment, my ass. You're dropping the title.' Funny that people would bring up Paul Heyman in a topic about a promoter blatantly and unapologetically reneging on a deal struck with a talent then undeservedly playing the victim about the whole situation. If Heyman didn't want talent going to WCW, he should have damn well paid them, and likewise, if Vince wanted to dictate Bret's booking he shouldn't have signed a legal contract entitling Bret to control his own departure, it's that simple. I hate that when ECW disrespects a title its this great rebellious moment, but if another company was supposedly going to its suddenly horrible. Though you could say that when Douglas did it, it was to further a cause as opposed to WCW where it would just be some cheap attempt at heat in a war WCW never remotely had a shot at winning after WWF weathered 96 and 97. I don't know. Anyway, have Bret face Taker for the title at Survivor Series. The rematch for Summerslam ended in a DQ in a match that wasn't broadcast the US. Taker wins the belt. HBK beats him the next month, due to Kane which could play a factor in setting up WM. That sets up things on the original timeline where HBK is the champion and he and Taker feud early into 98. Very easy and with little change as possible to the OTL.
|
|
|
Post by RowdyRobbyPiper on Aug 19, 2016 20:53:06 GMT -5
Wow. Almost twenty years later and people STILL get the details wrong. Amazing.
1. "Losing in Canada" was a red herring. The real issue was Bret did not trust Shawn at all due to the blatant disrespect he had shown Bret over the year and a half.
2. He WOULD NOT have turned up on Nitro the next night with the WWF title because he was still under contract until December. Why do you suppose it took so long, after being screwed, for him to actually debut in WCW? Plus, Bret respected the title too much to sully it the way Flair did to the WCW title in 1991.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Aug 19, 2016 22:08:35 GMT -5
People also act like Bret invented this precedent, when he was probably more often on the receiving end of it then anyone as high up as he was. Hogan wants title gets title win in a Bret vs. Yoko match. Later, Vince wants to phase Hogan out for a bit and give a rub to Bret. Nope, jobs to Yoko instead before leaving for WCW. Micheals losing his smile before Wrestlemania 13. What tradition do we speak of then, the champion doing best for business or just the tradition of screwing over the loyal for whom Vince 'bates too?
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Aug 19, 2016 22:18:35 GMT -5
At the end of the day it's hard not to view Bret as an ultra mark for himself. I finished his book a few weeks ago and he seemed like he just got too far into his own "Canadian hero" gimmick to realize he was being asked to lose a phony belt in a phony sport.
Why exactly would Vince want to change what happened? In theory it actually made Bret a bigger star on the way out. It was WCW that screwed him up after that. It also made Shawn Michaels a loathed champion that everyone wanted to see get destroyed. It also made Vince a vastly hated man and played into his eventual heel boss character. Add Austin to this mix in early 1998 and you had magic. WM 14 was really the first PPV I just had to see when it aired, and a big part of it was that after all the horrible things HBK had done for the past 8 months I knew 100% for a fact there was no way he wasn't losing to Austin.
|
|
|
Post by RowdyRobbyPiper on Aug 19, 2016 22:25:29 GMT -5
There is a reason why guys like Brody, Hansen, or Piper never or rarely did jobs. They were protecting their auras and their drawing capacity. In Piper's view, eating a leg drop from Hogan and taking a pinfall loss would have adversely affected Piper's stock. This was even more of an issue when the major wrestling promotions were easily accessible on cable (Flair, when he went back to WCW in 1993, says Ole had scoffed at him with "I can't do anything with you. Not after everyone saw you lose to Curt Hennig."). The Monday Night Wars magnified that by a hundred. Bret put the clause in his 1996 contract so that his stock would not be devalued should the contract be terminated and Bret would wind up having to job on the way out. Bret's demands were not unreasonable. 14 years earlier, Vince gave Bob Backlund enough creative control to not only choose who he would lose to but also choose the finish. But Bret was not given that courtesy.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 42,373
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Aug 19, 2016 22:38:46 GMT -5
Let's keep in mind that contract Bret signed, if it wasn't dissolved, is still running today. Yeah, it hasn't expired yet if we pretend Montreal never happened.
Bret offered to lose the belt plenty of times before and after Montreal, but didn't want to drop it to HBK after HBK said he'd never job for Bret or anyone else for that matter. Bret offered up Austin, Shamrock, Mankind and even Brawler as guys he'd be willing to drop to.
Vince offered Bret the 20 year contract, Vince gave Bret creative control in the final 30 days (something he still wouldn't have yet), Vince kept the belt on a guy leaving, Vince broke the deal, Vince helped him sign with WCW, Vince let the Kliq run amok.
Bret refused to drop in Canada during this storyline at PPV, he offered to lose in Ottawa the next night, where Raw has a larger audience than PPV anyway.
People act like Bret wasn't trying to honor his contract or was being unreasonable, he was the only one acting properly in the whole situation.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Aug 20, 2016 1:12:35 GMT -5
Let's keep in mind that contract Bret signed, if it wasn't dissolved, is still running today. Yeah, it hasn't expired yet if we pretend Montreal never happened. Bret offered to lose the belt plenty of times before and after Montreal, but didn't want to drop it to HBK after HBK said he'd never job for Bret or anyone else for that matter. Bret offered up Austin, Shamrock, Mankind and even Brawler as guys he'd be willing to drop to. Yeah, had he been asked to drop the belt to Austin, Shamrock, Foley, Taker, Vader, Farooq, or any number of guys he would have done it. The big problem for Bret was dropping the belt to HBK. HBK had gotten out dropping the title to him earlier that year, and had screwed over his brother in the law shortly before Survivor Series, it's understandable Bret would refuse to drop the title to HBK just on the strength of those 2 incidents alone.
|
|
edgehead
Dennis Stamp
Not a Poopyhead
Posts: 4,086
|
Post by edgehead on Aug 20, 2016 1:24:21 GMT -5
I want to say it was Cornette who basically said this, but even if Bret would've went out the next night and surrendered the belt, it basically cheapens it because he's handing over this belt and now I'm going to go work for this better company.
And btw, I am a Hart fan.
And I may be wrong, but did someone once say that Bret refused to lose the title before survivor series because the fans in Montreal wanted to see him defend it? Maybe I dreamed that or maybe someone made that up.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 42,373
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Aug 20, 2016 1:35:26 GMT -5
I want to say it was Cornette who basically said this, but even if Bret would've went out the next night and surrendered the belt, it basically cheapens it because he's handing over this belt and now I'm going to go work for this better company. And btw, I am a Hart fan. And I may be wrong, but did someone once say that Bret refused to lose the title before survivor series because the fans in Montreal wanted to see him defend it? Maybe I dreamed that or maybe someone made that up. Bret has stated they wanted to take it off him before Montreal, but he said the match with Shawn had to be title. I think he loosened his restriction on this, but I'm unsure of the timeline exactly. But nope, Bret has said he wouldn't lose before Montreal himself. You didn't dream it.
|
|