The booking of Bret Hart from late 1992-early 1996.

Vince is probably the only one who really still had that mindset about big guys going into the 90s.

Guys like Perfect, Bret, Dynamite Kid, etc. had been putting on stellar matches for YEARS while he kept hiring just awful talent because they were big. I'm talking Berzerker, Nails, Warlord awful.

I've been studying the years of 1995 and 1996 as a part of my rebooked "WWF 1996" diary (shameless plug, it's over on the Sims board if anyone cares, but that's not the point), and I did notice that Bret's WWF title reigns were all lackluster until 1997. It was very strange to see the WWF overshadow Bret's 1996 title reign as champion by promoting a "big" WrestleMania encounter between a below-average performer at that time, the Undertaker and a man that had already given his notice and would be going to WCW in June, Diesel. I personally believe that it had something to do with the "Hitman" character, as if management thought that something was a miss with it compared to the birth of the cocky heel in Diesel and Shawn, and the original Deadman gimmick of the Undertaker. But still, it was baffling to see, as Bret could have amounted to an even more historic career despite these flaws. If Bret had left for WCW in the fall of 1996 when he made contact with WCW officials, I'm not sure if he'd have been as legendary as people make him out to be in the modern era.

And if you think about it, perhaps it was the experience factor that allowed Bret to have such a successful year in late 96 through late 97. Bret's gimmick portrayed him as being more of a veteran (which he was, thirteen years in the WWF, eighteen years as a pro) with the feud with a younger Steve Austin, and then the amount of on-screen frustration Bret had. That angle in my eyes reflected as the turnaround point in Bret's character, and that's how everything changed how he was booked - almost as if Hart was voicing his frustrations for the past four years (as you noted in the OP's post), and that's how it became full-circle. And then you have the added definition of the "Hitman" character in turning heel on the USA, the rivalry with Steve Austin and later, Shawn Michaels. I think everything after Montreal with Bret going to WCW, and later on his induction into the Hall of Fame and return to the WWE was solely about Montreal and his Canada-loving gimmick from 1997 - overshadowing any of his WWF title reigns.

However I will disagree with one thing: Hart's final WWF title reign sucked too. He beat Undertaker with help from Shawn Michaels, went on to have decent matches yet a lackluster feud with the Patriot, a pay-per-view where Bret's title wasn't even a factor (in autumn 1997, when WCW was arguably peaking in kicking the WWF's ass), and then the match with Shawn at the Survivor Series.

I wouldn't say that Vince never pushed Bret as the #1 guy. If you look at 94 he chose Bret over his handpicked Luger, but that was the only time that it ever felt like the WWF pushed Bret as the #1 guy (until Vince decided to turn Nash face and put the strap on him) voluntarily. Unfortunately for Vince, the fans always saw Bret as the main guy, starting as early as 91 (where he recieved more fan mail than anyone else including Hogan, Warrior and Savage).

Depends how you look at it. In Vinces eye's. Yes. From a fan perspective? Absolutely not.

I dunno. I just feel like we got so much greatness out of Bret in 1997 that I can forgive his 24 hour title reign. That whole thing was a mess as HBK was supposed to drop it to Bret at Wrestlemania 13.

We were also scheduled to get Bret vs. HBK at King of the Ring 1997 but Bret's knee wasn't fully healed so we got HBK vs. Stone Cold which was great anyway.

I love, love, love his match with Undertaker at Summerslam. Again, I understand him taking a "backseat" and feuding with The Patriot because WWF was trying to cash in on the whole USA/Canada angle as much as possible. Bret was still the number 1 heel in the company even if HBK vs. Undertaker was a bigger feud. The only thing that pisses me off is when people talk about HBK and Undertaker main eventing Badd Blood over the champion, Bret Hart, who didn't even defend the title that night because he was in a tag match.

The only thing I would MAYBE change was having Bret be involved more with the Undertaker/HBK feud. As Haggar stated, a triple threat match with those three would have been amazing. However, by the time Survivor Series had rolled around the HBK/Undertaker feud had been put on hold due to the debut of Kane.

Check out Warlord's match with Neidhart, they had a good 15 minute match together. Nails and Berzerker couldn't have a good match if their lives depended on it.

One of the main reasons why Vice McMahon went back to Bret was merely because of his drawing ability internationally. The WWF's business domestically was in the toilet so they later used Bret as a way to market business internationally. Case in point, look at the venues the WWF was booking state-side for their RAW/Superstars/Challenge taping's. Say all you want but Bret was the face of the New Generation Era.

The problems that led the WWF to go into what was the lean years is McMahon felt out of touch with his audience. As a result, business declined. To compensate for their loss was doing international tours and put Bret as their marquee guy. I read a story somewhere years ago that after In Your House 4, Vince McMahon grabbed Kevin Nash by the throat and told him "Next month, you're losing the ******* title." Whereas Bret was able to draw, Diesel and Shawn Michaels failed to put asses in seats.

Its something I heard from another message board years ago. I can't vouch for that story nor can I confirm it.