|
|
Post by y2yay on Nov 4, 2012 16:25:18 GMT -5
I'm not saying Bret is a liar, just that he never misses a chance to toot his own horn. I watched his Hall of Fame induction a few days ago and he ended up rambling on for about 10 minutes at the end, just putting himself over. Considering he's one of the greatest talents we've seen and he was the top guy from 93-97, I think he is justified. If he's so great, other wrestlers will put him over. He doesn't need to sell himself. (And for the record, I do think Bret is great) |
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Nov 5, 2012 10:48:09 GMT -5
I'm not saying Bret is a liar, just that he never misses a chance to toot his own horn. I watched his Hall of Fame induction a few days ago and he ended up rambling on for about 10 minutes at the end, just putting himself over. Considering he's one of the greatest talents we've seen and he was the top guy from 93-97, I think he is justified. "A" top guy from 95-97, I wouldn't say "the" top guy. He was the man from 93-94 but then took a backseat to both Nash and Shawn throughout 95-96 imo. To the point where Bret admitted that from the time he won the belt from Nash up to WM12 he thought he was just keeping the spot warm for Shawn. 97 was pretty much a melting pot of all of Shawn, Bret, Austin and Taker so I would say any of those were "the guy" depending on what part of the year you were talking and then face and heel. That's what made 97 so good imo. To your point though, Bret's an all time great and you don't get there by not having a chip on your shoulder. Every top guy think's they are or were the best. Some are more vocal, others are not. Bret feels like he was the best and I don't have a problem with that personally, and I don't even like Bret that much. I do think it catches people off guard some times because Bret was the "wholesome do-gooder" for most of his career so for him to be or sound "cocky" seems off character. I like guys being a little arrogant though personally. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 10, 2024 14:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2012 10:51:53 GMT -5
Considering he's one of the greatest talents we've seen and he was the top guy from 93-97, I think he is justified. "A" top guy from 95-97, I wouldn't say "the" top guy. He was the man from 93-94 but then took a backseat to both Nash and Shawn throughout 95-96 imo. To the point where Bret admitted that from the time he won the belt from Nash up to WM12 he thought he was just keeping the spot warm for Shawn. 97 was pretty much a melting pot of all of Shawn, Bret, Austin and Taker so I would say any of those were "the guy" depending on what part of the year you were talking and then face and heel. That's what made 97 so good imo. To your point though, Bret's an all time great and you don't get there by not having a chip on your shoulder. Every top guy think's they are or were the best. Some are more vocal, others are not. Bret feels like he was the best and I don't have a problem with that personally, and I don't even like Bret that much. I do think it catches people off guard some times because Bret was the "wholesome do-gooder" for most of his career so for him to be or sound "cocky" seems off character. I like guys being a little arrogant though personally. Nash and Shawn both flopped, just like Luger did. Bret was the top guy from mid-late 92 to his departure in 97. |
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Nov 5, 2012 12:38:11 GMT -5
"A" top guy from 95-97, I wouldn't say "the" top guy. He was the man from 93-94 but then took a backseat to both Nash and Shawn throughout 95-96 imo. To the point where Bret admitted that from the time he won the belt from Nash up to WM12 he thought he was just keeping the spot warm for Shawn. 97 was pretty much a melting pot of all of Shawn, Bret, Austin and Taker so I would say any of those were "the guy" depending on what part of the year you were talking and then face and heel. That's what made 97 so good imo. To your point though, Bret's an all time great and you don't get there by not having a chip on your shoulder. Every top guy think's they are or were the best. Some are more vocal, others are not. Bret feels like he was the best and I don't have a problem with that personally, and I don't even like Bret that much. I do think it catches people off guard some times because Bret was the "wholesome do-gooder" for most of his career so for him to be or sound "cocky" seems off character. I like guys being a little arrogant though personally. Nash and Shawn both flopped, just like Luger did. Bret was the top guy from mid-late 92 to his departure in 97.  Oh yeah? Based on what? |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 10, 2024 14:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2012 12:48:40 GMT -5
Nash and Shawn both flopped, just like Luger did. Bret was the top guy from mid-late 92 to his departure in 97. Oh yeah? Based on what? Based on the fact that he was the main star during those years. He dethroned Flair as world champion and headlined both PPVs in 92 after Hogan left, in addition to the RR, WM and won the KOTR. After Luger flopped as a main eventer for Summerslam and Survivor Series Bret was the main eventer for WM10 and beyond. Even when Diesel was champ, Bret was co-main eventing many of the PPVs with him (Royal Rumble, Survivor Series) Whenever they tried another star, they flopped. Just look at WM11's main event, it is very possibly the worst main event of any Wrestlemania ever. The title ends up going back to Bret after Diesel flopped. After Shawn flops during his 96 run, the title goes back to Bret after the Royal Rumble. |
|
|
|
Post by tnafan17: The Total Package on Nov 5, 2012 14:18:22 GMT -5
I asked this question a while ago on the boards, and I have to agree looking back there is no way Davey could carry the company. Now, could he be in high profile matches with other top guys and perform? Definitely, but to be "the guy" in the company Davey would never have been able to handle it.
|
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Nov 5, 2012 16:21:31 GMT -5
Like someone else said, Nash and HBK both flopped on top. Both were entertaining, but Bret was a better draw in 95-96 than both of them. Vince saw a big decline in viewship during those years with those two holding the top strap. For HBK, I'll give you that he did have to go against the nWo angle, but in 96, the highest rated months were when Bret was champ, and the highest rated Raw was Bret's return than fall. Bret was always the fall back guy and remained the top guy through atleast 96. 97 I'll agree that others challenged him for the spot, but Bret still remained the most over heel for much of the year.
|
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Nov 5, 2012 17:42:12 GMT -5
Like someone else said, Nash and HBK both flopped on top. Both were entertaining, but Bret was a better draw in 95-96 than both of them. Vince saw a big decline in viewship during those years with those two holding the top strap. For HBK, I'll give you that he did have to go against the nWo angle, but in 96, the highest rated months were when Bret was champ, and the highest rated Raw was Bret's return than fall. Bret was always the fall back guy and remained the top guy through atleast 96. 97 I'll agree that others challenged him for the spot, but Bret still remained the most over heel for much of the year. Shawn had better house show numbers than Bret did. The ratings dropped regardless of who was wearing the title at that time though, as evident by the ratings dropping when Bret was champion as well. Nash, he just had the title for too long imo based on what he was capable of at the time. I can live with Nash "flopping" but Shawn and Bret were virtually interchangeable as babyfaces from the change over in 96. Even if Nash flopped, he was still the man in 95. Bret said he took a back seat to Nash, and then he said he felt like he took a back seat to Shawn even when he (meaning Bret) was champion in late 95 up to Mania 12. So no offense to you and Anvil, but if Bret said he wasn't the man at that time, as viewed by the company, then I don't think he was the man. So regardless if you guys thought Bret was the man at the time, Bret didn't think he was the man. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 10, 2024 14:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2012 18:00:23 GMT -5
Taking a back seat isn't the same as not being the guy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 10, 2024 14:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2012 18:05:36 GMT -5
No. I liked him but he wasn't WWF Champion material, especially with the guys they had around at the time he was in the WWF that would have been better champions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 10, 2024 14:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2012 18:06:12 GMT -5
Taking a back seat isn't the same as not being the guy. Yes it is. Nash was the man, Bret was next in line |
|
|
|
Post by Bartman on Nov 5, 2012 18:07:17 GMT -5
Taking a back seat isn't the same as not being the guy. Pretty much. For example, The Ultimate Warrior & Hulk Hogan. Sure, they gave Warrior the strap and pushed him hard to be #1, but Hogan was still the top guy regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Nov 5, 2012 19:08:05 GMT -5
Taking a back seat isn't the same as not being the guy. Yes it is imo. Taking a back seat isn't the same as not being the guy. Pretty much. For example, The Ultimate Warrior & Hulk Hogan. Sure, they gave Warrior the strap and pushed him hard to be #1, but Hogan was still the top guy regardless. Not being champion and taking a back seat are two different things. Which works for the Hogan Warrior situation. With Bret, the ball was in someone else's hands completely because Shawn took it. The argument could be made Nash was given the ball and fumbled. Bret and Shawn were more like Hogan and Macho Man than they were like Hogan and Warrior. Nash probably fills the Warrior role in this analogy. However, Bret never reached that next level of popularity, just like Shawn, so they were much closer in comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Nov 5, 2012 21:03:20 GMT -5
Like others have said, taking a back seat to someone doesn't mean they are not The Man.CM Punk has been the champ for the last year, but Cena has continued to be The Man. Same thing with Bret back then. Even though Vince tried pushing guys like Luger, Nash, and HBK to the top, the fans always went back to Bret and he was chosen over each of them.
Not sure where you got the house show numbers because business across the board was going down due to WCW kicking their butts. Bret drew the better numbers when he was around as opposed to when he was gone and HBK was the sole leader of the WWF. Numbers began to drop back in 93 when wrestling went into a down period, so I don't blame Bret or any of the others guys for that. But Bret was the safe guy that Vince always went back to when he needed a decent boost in ratings. Everyone got behind Bret, even in 96, while the majority of fans shat on Shawn not long after he was given the title. Shawn was a boring face champ, and fans clamored for Bret to return in late 1996.
To me Shawn was a flop in 1996, and while Bret was the top guy during a down period, he was always the fall back guy for Vince and was arguably the most over WWF star ever outside of the US. He drew great numbers overseas, and basically carried the WWF in the US through a very bad down period.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 10, 2024 14:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2012 21:35:49 GMT -5
Edit: wrong thread.
|
|
+nod+of+approval.gif)
