Bret Hart vs. Flair dirt?

[cawthon777]

In 93, he made a few comments in the Sun. It wasn't monthly by any means.

Then Bret went to WCW and apologized to Flair, who seemed to be cool with it. Years later, it's obvious he wasn't cool with it.

[phinney]

Either way I think its stupid for fans to be so conernced with what One wrestler said about another wrestler. They're both great workers, and both great guys, lets leave it at that. They have a mini-feud, big deal. Flair slams Bret in book, big deal. Bret slams Flair back, big deal.

[sittingstill]

My impression from Bret's Q&A was just that he was bitter - I found it a bit sad, saying that he wound never appear in the WWE 'not this year, next year or any other year' and then say in the same breath that he was going up to Stamford the next day to finish work on the DVD - what's the difference between appearing at Summerslam and appearing on the DVD, morally or legally? Its the same thing - he's working for the WWE in a performance role. When people say stuff like 'Bret couldn't carry Ric Flair's jockstrap' etc thats ridiculous - they are about the same: great wrestlers that are slightly overrated, basically because they were both pushed on (inter)national tv for long periods of time as being great wrestlers and people remember them as such. As an interview/personality however, Bret Hart couldn't carry Ric Flair's jockstrap. He has about as much charisma on camera as he had in that Q&A. When he tries to make it look cut & dry obvious that Ric Flair is a bad wrestler, that everyone in the industry knows this for a fact (like when he cites the '92 SNME deal w/ Flair vs Savage) its just sour grapes - did Flair take a cheap at Hart & Foley in his book? Yeah - he's playing the McMahon-Helmsley-Michaels political deal. But Hart's response has been just so lame. When he started talking about Flair having the same match often (a fair point) citing the chops/Ray Stevens bump over the ring post/getting thrown off the top rope/kneedrop/figure four deal, how many people had to bite their tongue to not shout out 'but how is that different from the Russian legsweep/elbow from the second rope/sharpshooter deal'? And not to make Bret look stupid, just to get him to elaborate on what he means in more detail as he just made himself look stupid. Also: to even insinuate the Michaels is not a good wrestler (or, frankly, that Bret is better than Shawn) is entirely ridiculous, and Bret nearly went there. The bottom line is the guy has had a lot of poo poo happen to him: Montreal; Owen, Stu, Helen & Davey Boy dying; not be able to wrestle etc that he probably is really sensitive when people bitch and try to defame his skills/legacy so he gives as good as he gets. When comparing Flair to Bret, the hard thing is that Flair was on top from the time he won the TV title from Paul Jones in '75 until losing the retirement match to Hogan at Halloween Havoc in '94 (and he was on top various points after that as well, but never positioned as the focal point main event draw even though he could've been). Bret was only really a top singles guy from '91 until Montreal - just over 6 years so their isn't as much comparable source material or the ability to look at issues like longevity and drawing power to really say who was better. And its kind of irrelevant....

What really soured me about Bret's Q&A is when Bret had said 'it was nothing to do with losing in Canada, I just didn't want to lose to [Michaels]'. I had previously excepted that Montreal was McMahon screwing Bret unfairly and left it at that, based upon when Bret said (I think in 'Wrestling With Shadows') that he'd happily drop the title to Michaels elsewhere just not in Canada (i.e. that they could've done a schmoz in Montreal that night and Bret could've lost to Shawn on a subsequent RAW or something - which sounds fair under the circumstances and makes it look like McMahon was paranoid / just wanting it done his way and screw everybody else). Bret saying that he would'nt have dropped to Michaels under any circumstances - about the only person in November 1997 WWF who could have held the title - puts different light on McMahon's decision (although I would've just used Shamrock or Taker as an interim champion to get the title off Bret clean as ultimately the title was devalued). Or something....

[sittingstill]

Of course, the Montreal angle was the launching pad for the Mr McMahon character, the heel for the most successful boom period in the history of the business....