Scott,
Two questions for you and the blog:
1. Why did Bret win the title at "Final Four" in early 1997 only to lose it the next night to Sid? Seemed silly to have a decorated champion and still in his prime Bret serve as a short term transitional champ a-la Iron Sheik in 1984 or Bob Backlund in 1994. I heard that maybe SCSA was booked to win Final Four but plans had to change mid-match when he got legit injured. If that is true, what were the plans for SCSA's first planned reign?
2. Why did Bret win the title from Undertaker at Summerslam 1997? Just a few weeks later Vince told Bret he was going to breach his contract because he couldn't afford him any longer. Vince had to have known that before Summerslam. I can't believe that Vince would put the title on him knowing he was going to get rid of him, no matter how hot the Hart Foundation angle was.
2. That is absolutely one of the great mysteries of that time period, to me. Why DID Vince put the belt on him? I think maybe Vince just didn't foresee how insanely hot D-X would become in a short period of time, or maybe he really did have the intention of following through with the contract. Undertaker certainly wasn't any huge draw on top, but you'd think Shawn was the more logical choice to switch the belt, because they had their big main event program coming up and it would have made more sense. So yeah, I got nothing here, sorry.
I think Bret's one day reign in 97' fitted perfectly as it added fuel to the fire of him 'getting screwed by the WWF' gimmick and eventual heel turn (even though he knew he had to defend the title the next day after the PPV). Also he could take the blow, he was an established champion so it wouldn't hurt his reputation hotshotting the strap on and off him, whilst Stone Cold could of looked like a choker if his first reign lasted just 24 hours, just not worth the risk.
ReplyDeleteI never truly understood why they put the title back on Bret at SSlam, but my thoughts are Vince still at that point thought he could keep his word and pay his contract. Also the fact that Bret was a solid reliable draw, it was safer to go with him than Shawn at that time because HBK totally bombed as champion first time around.
Wasn't Sid supposed to win the title off Shawn on the Thursday RAW where Shawn lost his smile? And thus the Fatal Four Way would be for the #1 Contendership at Mania, which Undertaker would win.
ReplyDeleteNeed blog hits?
ReplyDeleteTalk about Bret in 97
97 Bret > Montreal Screwjob > Blog Hits > Profit.
My thoughts on Bret getting the title at Summerslam was initally to be the heel champ on the way towards Austin at WM 14... Problem was HBK getting white hot with DX and the contract thing.
ReplyDeleteCorrect. Although, I'm pretty sure Bret was always supposed to win the 4 way match and go on to face Michaels at WM.
ReplyDeleteThis is my thinking too. And I think initially Shawn was supposed to be more of a tweener.
ReplyDeleteI have a few theories on Bret winning the belt at Summerslam.
ReplyDelete1. Vince hadn't decided Bret was such an impediment to the new direction yet so he hadn't concocted his BS financial distress story. This point is key to several other possible reasons why Bret got the belt.
2. As someone mentioned, Austin gets his win back from Bret for the belt.
3. After Shawn feuds with Taker, he then feuds with Bret (like he did) and beats Bret again. This is my "poke the bear with a sharp stick" theory. Vince wanted to job Bret to Shawn again and continue to poke him to annoy him, as he had been doing since Bret's return in late 96. If you believe Bret's story about the scenarios Vince tossed at him right before Bret faxed his WCW contract in (multiple jobs to Shawn month after month), this theory makes sense.
4. He really wanted to job his legend/superhero guy to his degenerate. I find this one doubtful because I don't think the Shawn DX persona was really developed in Vince's mind (or proposed to him by Shawn and HHH) yet at that point, but I've long held that the biggest reason Vince wouldn't budge on letting Bret job the belt to someone other than Shawn at Survivor was a desire to cement the new attitude era with who Vince saw as the face of the attitude era with a win over the face of the older era.
5. Reward Bret for the success of the Hart Foundation angle. Agaiin this requires a belief that Vince had not decided Bret must go yet.
I have always wondered the same thing, re: SummerSlam 1997. Bret & the Foundation were hot, but why not have Shawn's interference allow for Taker to retain? Then, if the long-term plan was to get the belt on Bret in the name of putting Austin over at Wrestlemania, just have Bret booked to WIN the title at Survivor Series in Montreal.
ReplyDeleteIf referee Shawn Michaels costs Bret the match inadvertently instead, they could have still gone ahead with the two In Your House Taker-HBK matches, only for the title this time. Bret could beat up the Patriot, Vader, Dude Love, et al to get another title shot. Would have made sense for the match booking too: Michaels is terrified of Taker, but is so desperate to be The Man again that he takes a shit-kicking in the name of regaining the gold. Once it was decided they couldn't "afford" Hart's contract, Vince doesn't have to get the title off him and could easily audible any "Bret regaining title in Montreal" plans and let Shawn carry the title til Mania.
It could have been for the title. Taker gets so annoyed with DX hovering around him that he challenges HBK. Michaels is petrified of Taker, but his ego won't let him turn down a title shot. So he takes the beating in the name of maybe getting his title back. Then Kane gives him an unforeseen gift
ReplyDeleteIs there a more significant title change than that SummerSlam 1997 one? If Taker is booked to retain, then there is no belt to remove from Bret in Montreal. Hart gets whatever send-off he gets, Shawn takes the title from Taker, Shawn jobs the belt to Austin. No evil McMahon giving "asshole boss" speeches in the wake of Montreal, although we certainly could have gotten to "Vince-as-evil-authority-figure" other way.
ReplyDeleteWithout Montreal, maybe Davey Boy and Neidhart don't walk out and, instead, Owen takes over the Hart Foundation as new leader to feud with DX.
Further, maybe Bret arrives in WCW a little more motivated and has a couple more years of good matches (since Montreal never happens).
And even further, if Owen gets the more prominent role (and Montreal had never effected anything), he's probably not doing stupid mid-card gimmicks and rappelling from rafters.
* Montreal comments exhausted for the year *
The Wrestlemania where he won the belt was the lowest Wrestlemania buyrate, so yeah.
ReplyDeleteI would assume it was because they didn't think Bret was gonna be such a huge selfish jackass about losing it. He always carried himself like someone who respected the business and did the right thing. They probably thought he would do his job (no pun intended), which on that night was to lose, without acting all righteous about it.
ReplyDeleteyeah , how dare he try and hold Vince to the creative control clause in his contract after having Vince breach his contract in the first place. He should have just been happy to do whatever WWF wanted, regardless of how obnoxious they treated him and what a jerk Shawn was to him and the rest of the locker room, after all isn't that how we all leave jobs in the everyday work world. (please turn on your sarcasm detectors for your safety and the safety of others.)
ReplyDeleteOne thing I found interesting in a recent discussion is a third point of view on why Bret was pushed out of WWF. This discussion was with someone who has worked in the business and who knows a great deal about behind the scenes stuff and talks to various workers. The person said that rather than financial distress or finding Bret an impediment to the new WWF direction, Vince almost immediately regretted the Bret contract because he realized it threw the salary structure of WWF out of whack and when contracts for Austin, Taker, HBK, etc. would come due they would get huge raises from what they currently made (supposedly Bret was making double what Taker and HBK were making in 97). By kicking Bret to the curb he hoped to get the salary structure back to earth. However, either this person is wrong IMO or Vince was naive to think that WCW as an alternate place wasn't going to drive up salaries for those guys just like they did for Bret. Regardless of Bret's deal, when the other's came due, WCW was still going to offer then 2-3 million a year just like they did Bret.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, just found the discussion interesting with a different point of view, so I put it out there.
I agree that Shawn and Vince were assholes. I just think they were assholes that happened to be on the right side of this argument.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Regardless of who was 'right' or 'wrong', what was in his contract was in his contract, and should have been honored.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of the card kind of sucked too, though. At least in reputation...after rewatching it recently, I kind of prefer it to much of the recent WWE PPVs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this in principle but since it was a "reasonable creative control" clause then the discussion moves to what would be considered reasonable and who had the right to decide if it was reasonable or not.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the original plan was Bret vs. Austin at Mania. Because what better way to start the era of Austin than giving him the definitive win against Bret, and having the traditional champion lose to the attitude challenger.
ReplyDeleteI think they are right if we have the mindset that Bret never wanted to lose to Shawn, BUT it seems to be the case that Bret was happy too UNTIL Shawn said 'yeah, I wouldn't put you over if the situation was reversed.' Implying Shawn didn't give a rat shit about the legacy or putting people over himself, which means Bret would've figured 'why should I help out such a selfish brat.'
ReplyDeleteBasically, Shawn was a dick back then and Bret was an asshole. Bret didn't want to get fucked by Shawn, but Shawn wanted to do some fucking.
In Bret's book, he mentions that one of the proposed plans was for him and Michaels to fight in a ladder match at Mania, with Shawn's hair on the line, and Bret would win and get to shave Shawn's head.
ReplyDeleteI always assumed Undi was a consistent draw throughout his entire run.
ReplyDeletenot the same thing. Hogan and Nash used their clauses on whims to avoid jobbing. Bret never refused a job before and had the clause only for his final 30 days to prevent Vince from making him come out in a tutu or something. Hogan sabotaged WCW with his creative control clause and Starcade 97, whereas I hold to this day that Bret jobbing the belt to someone else would not have hurt the WWF in the slightest.
ReplyDeleteDidn't Bret Hart get title reigns written into his contract?
ReplyDeleteOwen still had to deal with the fallout of breaking Austin's neck at the SummerSlam, which probably didn't help his cause. Wasn't Austin refusing to work with Owen for a while?
ReplyDeletePerhaps BRET HART leading an INVASION against a HEEL JOHN CENA in MONTREAL and starting a new version of the FOUR HORSEMEN *AND* NEW WORLD ORDER in the same night??
ReplyDeleteit didn't have to be his last match. he offered to job to Shawn the next night on Raw after a DQ finish at Survivor. He also offered to lose to anyone else in the WWF before Survivor. It was his last match because Vince was paranoid that BIschoff would announce Bret as champ on Nitro and that Bret would take the belt to Nitro (highly unlikely. Bret says not a chance and hated that Flair did that to his old mates in WCW, plus Eric confirmed that due to lawsuits there was ZERO chance that he could pull another Madusa even if Bret agreed to it or he wanted to).
ReplyDeleteIt all comes down to Vince NEEDING his degenerate to beat his legend hero to cement the new attitude era. That's why Vince wouldn't compromise or consider any alternative.
Too bad the Iron Sheik wasn't around...
ReplyDeleteExactly. And is it "reasonable" to think you'd be able to retain the top championship in your last match with the company?
ReplyDeleteAgreed. It would not shock me if they were sitting there saying "Is this guy REALLY serious about not losing a fake title to a fake character just because he doesn't like the performer and it's in his home country?"
ReplyDeleteIf a guy from, say, New Hampshire refused to drop the title in Dallas because he's in his "home country" we would call him a douchebag.
And look how terrible WCW became because of said creative control. Bret asked to leave the company with his head held high, that's it.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more. No one was particularly "right", but Vince had every right to protect his company. Shawn had no incentive to take Bret's side in the argument, so he did what he was convinced was best for the company. It's still a dick move on WWF's part, but I understand it.
ReplyDeleteMight have been fun to see the first Wrestlemania "Triple Threat" too. Shawn vs. Bret vs. Austin for the title. HBK as the dickhead heel playing the other two off each other. Austin going after both. Bret bitching about the two ruining the business.
ReplyDeleteCertainly more reasonable than the shit pulled in WCW
ReplyDeleteYou forgot BROCK LESNAR doing a run-in.
ReplyDeleteSwitching the belt from UT to Bret may not have made sense at the time, Scott, but in retrospect it was a BRILLIANT move, IMO, because it's the earliest example I can think of a TRUE main event feud that didn't require the top belt to be the main event feud. It didn't matter who Bret wrestled while he was champ for the next month, everyone KNEW it was the UT and Shawn Show, and that created great flexibility for the future in Vince's mind when otherwise, you might have had the scenario of, say, Rock beating Jericho for the Undisputed title after one month so that Rock could defend it against Hogan at WM18. Plus, the whole reason for the EXISTENCE of the UT/Shawn feud was precisely because Shawn was responsible for UT losing the title; the feud would probably not have been anywhere near as heated if UT had still been the champ!
ReplyDeleteHe gave them other options, they didn't take it.
ReplyDeleteExactly
ReplyDeleteBasically just a dick-measuring contest and both guys deserved to lose in the situation.
ReplyDeleteYes. We blast Hogan and Nash for their "creative control" clauses, but Bret gets a pass all the time
ReplyDeleteoffering to job to any guy in the company save one on one particular night seems pretty reasonable to me.
ReplyDelete