Pieces of My Mind 7.15.08: Bret Hart

Posted by Geoff Eubanks on 07.15.2008

Will Bret Hart be remembered as The Best There Is, The Best There Was and The Best There Ever Will Be? Or is he soiling that stellar in-ring legacy with his actions and what appears to be a consuming NEED to be remembered as The Best There Is, The Best There Was & The Best There Ever Will Be?

Although I've been watching professional wrestling (or sports entertainment, if you prefer…I do not) since I was 13 years old, I cannot deny the fact that I was initially an absolute stupid mark, and long after I should have known better. I am truly and infinitely grateful for the benefit of videotaped matches and promos, because, having been such a stupid mark, I, then, failed to appropriately appreciate the very real talent of many fantastic performers, such as Randy Savage, Rick Rude and Bret Hart, all of whom I now respect a great deal. It is only now that I am older and wiser that I not only appreciate the obvious fun of the product, but the finer aspects which contribute to creating a truly fine performance, not the least of which having the ability to be a true ring general. Few have mastered their craft to such a degree that s/he can actually wear that title with any semblance of honesty; Hart has earned that right. Though his career was tragically abbreviated due to an undiagnosed concussion, one must assume Hart's legacy as The Best There Is, The Best There Was & The Best There Ever Will Be was, in the minds of many, was cemented.

However, likewise, in the minds of many, in the twilight of his career to the present, Hart is soiling that stellar in-ring legacy with his actions and what appears to be a consuming NEED to be remembered as The Best There Is, The Best There Was & The Best There Ever Will Be, as well as maintaining his self-appointed role as the true hero of the professional wrestling industry. That's an incredibly demanding task with which to saddle one's self, but Hart apparently feels he's up for the challenge. There have been, in my mind, three glaring examples where this task has caused public opinion (at least to some) to sway away from remembering Hart with the unwavering respect he is certain he deserves, however: 1) Montreal, 2) his response to the comments made by Ric Flair in his (Flair's) autobiography, and 3) the recent debacle at a hall of fame ceremony in Waterloo, IA.

Leading up to that fated night in November 1997, it was then my opinion that Hart's best years as an actual WRESTLER were in his past, as it seemed he was employing in greater increments a more stripped-down "punch-kick" style throughout the body of his matches, a stark contrast to the style we'd come to expect from The Excellence Of Execution. then heading into "the five moves of doom" to set up the vaunted Sharpshooter. In my mind, Hart just didn't have it anymore OR, if I was feeling particularly magnanimous, I'd suggest that he was simply trying to play the game of the performer who had by-passed him, Steve Austin. Of course, in the interim, I now realize that he was playing a heel and a heel is more than likely not going to bust out all the stellar moves that garner him cheers when he wrestles as a face; it's part of psychology, of manipulating the crowd.

However, it's a pretty irrefutable statement that Hart, barring some sort of cataclysm befalling the WWF, was never going to be the top man in the company again. He was a reliable mechanic who could play a convincing heel or face and as a credible world champion, but with Shawn Michaels around and Austin trumping them both in terms of being the obvious next step up in the company, the most for which he could hope was having a turn with the hot potato (especially considering the eventual rise of other main-eventers following his WWF departure in Mick Foley, Kurt Angle, Triple H and especially The Rock, to say nothing of the ever-present Undertaker), and that simply was not good enough for Hart at that stage of his career. He'd worked HARD, with a schedule of close to 300 dates a year for fourteen years, missed only ONE match (due to a flight cancellation), had done everything ever asked of him and had never once injured a fellow performer during the course of a match. If he'd hit the ceiling in the WWF, especially with Michaels so staunchly entrenched in the back pocket of Vince McMahon, perhaps a change of scenery where he'd be more appreciated was in order. Eric Bishcoff made him a lucrative offer and he accepted, with McMahon's blessing.

(An interesting, if innocuous, point to ponder, is how Hart's future, indeed, his entire LIFE would have played out had he remained in Vince's employ instead of jumping to WCW, because, had he hung around for TWO SHORT MONTHS, Michaels would be out of his proverbial hair, as, at the ROYAL RUMBLE that following January that Michaels injured his back and was shelved for four years.)

I'm not going to criticize Hart for wanting to go over in his home country at SURVIVOR SERIES (his final pay-per-view with the WWF; it was his contractual right to do so. I'm not going to criticize Earl Hebner; he was simply following the boss' orders. I'm not going to criticize McMahon for "screwing" Hart; his company was a lot closer to folding than many at the time realized and he was protecting his family's business. Furthermore, when one considers that McMahon convinced Flair to appear on WWF-TV in 1992 with the WCW World Title belt, integrity or not, McMahon was likely petrified that Bischoff would convince Hart to "Medusa" the WWF World Title on Nitro in a time of virtual war, considering the ridiculous tactics to which Bischoff stooped to defeat Raw in the ratings those 84 consecutive weeks, McMahon was well-founded to keep the cornerstone of his company close to home. I'm not even going to criticize Michaels, even though history has proven that he was at a personal pinnacle of selfish, drug-addicted dickdom at this point and was more than willing to humiliate Hart, who had criticized the manner in which Michaels had held the HWT during his initial first run with the belt, which Michaels accepted in ultra-personal fashion (especially since the company, under Michaels' reign, had done better numbers than under Hart's). Montreal was simply an unfortunate event, an embarrassment for all involved, necessary as it MAY have been.

So why bother to dredge this up at all? Because of the manner in which Hart The Hero reacted immediately following the "screwing". Spitting in McMahon's eye? Like Vince himself, as a fan of both wrestling and Hart, I accept that. McMahon had to have known he'd have that coming. Punching him out, blackening his eye and giving him a mild concussion in the presence of his son backstage? Throwing a rampaging public tantrum and destroying thousands of dollars worth of equipment at ringside? I'm putting it mildly when I call that behavior unbecoming of a hero, at least no hero of mine. In my eyes, someone whom I would call a hero would have set an example of how one behaves when beset with such adversity; accept what had occurred, hold your head high and allow your rabid fans to express your anger and indignity for you, which they certainly (and rightfully) were doing, and walk out of that arena with the pride, poise and grace Hart had always claimed he had. Instead, the example Hart set for his fans, many impressionable children, was the message that it's all well and good to talk about doing the right thing, but when the shit gets thick, it's all well and good to throw a tantrum tantamount to that which might an unsupervised child, leaving an angry trail of shrapnel in your wake.

I understand his motivation, I understand wanting to behave in such a manner, and, in fairness, he did it because he could (in what other profession could someone get away with such a display undisciplined, indeed, cheered and revered?), but such actions are anything but heroic. Arguably justified, but heroic? Not a chance. In my mind, heroism is not something one turns on and off, one is either a hero 24/7 or is not at all, not whenever it suits one to be such, and it's in just such an instance of adversity where one proves one's quality. Would I have done the same thing? Hell yes, I would have!...BUT I AM NO HERO. I've never wanted to be and certainly never COULD be, I'm just pragmatic about it. And I'd certainly have had the good sense enough to have regretted my ridiculous actions once a cooler head prevailed; the fact that Hart to this day proudly stands behind his actions disturbs and saddens me in his regard. That display turned an embarrassment into a disgrace, and, in my own humble opinion, he should be ashamed.

(An interesting note: even as big a bitch as Michaels was at that time, and I don't simply mean the HBK character, he warned from the middle of the ring, that wrestlers are not to be looked up to, that not a one of them, himself most certainly included, is a hero.)

We all know what the coming years would hold for Hart in WCW. The undiagnosed concussion, which was, compounded in the coming weeks (by no less than a Terry Funk chair shot at one point), forcing him into premature retirement, the fluke stroke that sealed the possibility of "one more match". The tragic passing of Daveyboy Smith and his beloved brother Owen (after having already lost FOUNDATION member Brian Pillman years earlier), the passing of his parents, his divorce, the sale of the legendary Hart House. Compounded with his inability to tell more stories, to compete in the ring, to entertain his loyal, worldwide fanbase, one would assume disappointment and regret must haunt Hart, but I've no idea and I certainly will not attempt to speak for him, especially as he is an incredibly articulate person and certainly an eloquent writer. I've heard some making excuses for Hart in this regard, claiming that his hardships entitle him to the outspoken nature we're about to discuss, and to that I call bullshit. Hart's has been a life of tremendous ups (which he worked his ass off to EARN), and, call it fate, God's will, karma, what have you, but balance eventually comes into play and to use the wages of such balance as an excuse is childish. I want to STRESS that NEVER ONCE has Hart himself EVER even intimated that he's entitled to ANYTHING because of his recent hardships. Please re-read that last sentence! I just want to stress that there is no excuse to be made. Hart acts of his own free will (Kevin Von Erich is no stranger to abject tragedy, both from personal and business standpoints and he lives a quiet life in Denton, Texas).

I mention Hart's unfortunate premature necessity to retire because I'm convinced it contributes greatly to the manner in which we see Hart behaving as a result. Something we, the fans, may find easy to overlook is that, aside from the frustration of no longer being able to perform, someone like Hart, who took sublime pride in his work and intends to be remembered as the best in the history of the business, now must be upset because he no longer has the option to add to his legacy, while others, such as Ric Flair, managed to compete almost into his sixties. I mention Flair specifically for two reasons: 1) Flair is most certainly on the short list of Hart's competitors for that coveted title, and 2) the comments Flair made about Hart in his autobiography, our next point.

Breaking down the issue to its most basic level, Hart was upset that Flair was critical over Hart claiming he's the best of all time, that he (Hart) performed the same routine in his matches, exploited the death of Owen for his own gain and that Hart was a poor draw. Of course, Hart couldn't help himself and had to respond to Flair's claims with a monstrous, yet incredibly eloquent, tome in his own defense.

The issue of "who is the best wrestler of all time" is sticky and is, of course, HIGHLY subjective. Even accumulating a list of criteria by which to judge the candidates is daunting enough; observe the pain the editors/writers of Pro Wrestling Illustrated endure just compiling their annual top 500 wrestlers! Quite frankly, it's my opinion that a clear winner in this field will never be named, because there are gentlemen such as Lou Thesz, Frank Gotch, George Hackenschmidt, Ed Lewis, etc., from a bygone era that many of us may never actually see perform, yet whose reputations endure, and, even if we did, by today's standards, their style might seem a trifle dull and uninspired when compared to modern showmen such as Hart and Flair. Even breaking down between these two who is superior to the other is a difficult "apples & oranges" kind of argument, because Flair was more of a glitz and glamour performer, whereas Hart was more about grit and technicality, although both certainly employed bits of each others game throughout their careers.

Flair attempted to qualify his claim by employing the "five moves of doom" argument in Hart's regard, to which, of course, Hart took mighty offense, going to great detail, citing numerous examples of Flair's inability to live up to his billing and legend once they finally met in a WWF ring. Not being an actual wrestler myself, I can neither verify nor deny Hart's claims simply by reading his descriptions although I'm not going to eschew completely either's statements about the other.

What I'm hearing from both of these legends is their own fear, insecurity and uncertainty. As age inevitably begins to lay claim to a performer's livelihood (in any area of performance, sports, pro wrestling, music), such performer must come to grips with the grim reality that his/her best years have already occurred, and concern over his/her enduring legacy becomes of paramount concern…"Was I really good enough such that my performances will stand the test of time, will I continue to be viewed and revered, not just by my peers, but by subsequent generations, as truly great? Did I do ENOUGH when I was younger?" This especially must be true in Hart's case, as, as mentioned, his career came to an abrupt end.

(I recall a soliloquy by Jim Cornette during the Monday Night Wars aired on WWF-TV with regard to the manner in which certain performers were putting themselves over, referring to themselves as "God" or "Icon" or "The Icon That Can Still Go". He suggested that perhaps those truly deserving of such titles were the men who never needed to supply themselves with one, dropping the names Steve Austin and Arn Anderson in the process. I myself, personally, am not suggesting either or both of these men deserve to be remembered over Hart and/or Flair, I simply include this because it might be an interesting point to ponder when you yourself make your own considerations for "best ever" should you be so inclined.)

We're all feeling warm and fuzzy in the wake of Flair's glorious retirement and with good reason. However, when I read Flair's accusation that Hart exploited his brother's death, I was VERY angry. That was simply low and uncalled for and it makes me wonder why Flair would suggest such a thing. Share your views, good or bad, about a man's talent or the manner in which he handles business, but unless we're talking a Benoit situation, leave a man's family at his home, ESPECIALLY when it's SUCH a hot button topic like Owen's horrifically tragic passing. It's not a matter of "too soon", it's just that some things are and should remain sacred. Actually, Ric, if you want to talk exploitation of the departed, talk to your best friend about how his father-in-law treated Eddie Guerrero's untimely demise.

With respect to Hart's ability to draw, I don't know. There are aspects about the business I hesitate upon which to comment because I'm just ignorant to them. Ratings breakdowns, financial concerns, ability to draw, contractual matters and downsides…my mind just isn't wired in that way and rather than attempt to sell a bunch of assclownery to you, I'd rather be straight up and shrug my shoulders at you and suggest you bring up the matter with those who have a better grasp of such matters. What I do know about Hart is that the WWF did it's best grossing year after hart took a hiatus from the company with Michaels as champion and that Hart was a much larger draw internationally than in America. The United Kingdom, Germany, hell, virtually the whole of Europe, South Africa, Australia, South America, of course Canada, he likely remains one of the most popular wrestling-related figures ever. It cannot be denied that Hart helped to put the "world" in World Wrestling Federation during his long tenure with the company. Considering the shit McMahon is accepting from a moderately talented little pissant like Carlito because of his (alleged) appeal with Latino audiences, were Hart in the fold now, he'd be positively revered by McMahon. Jerry Lawler likes to refer to Canada as "BIzzaro World" as a result of whom the fans elect to cheer; perhaps it's the US that is backward?

And now to the present. We've all heard the story. Hart was accepting an award on behalf of his father, Stu, when, mid-speech, he spied Greg Oliver of SlamWrestling in attendance, who was present to accept an award on his own behalf, and began berating the writer. Hart was discussing the sacrifices performers are forced to make to excel in their profession, and I must agree with him, a wrestler is forced to sacrifice a great deal, Hart in particular, obviously. However he began to customize, if you will, his speech in Oliver's regard, suggesting that there were "some" in attendance who sacrifice nothing for their profession, which I must translate to mean those who write about professional wrestlers don't have to spend 300 days a year away from their significant others and children or sacrifice their health and well-being to ply their trade, as do the wrestlers themselves. There were other wrestlers in attendance who favored Hart's speech with a standing ovation.

At this point, with one glaring exception, which I will discuss momentarily, I can't disagree with him. Hart happens to be blessed with the talent and ability to both wrestle and write with eloquence. Not all of us have been so gifted. However, this brings up a point upon many of us in the IWC dislike dwelling; although professional wrestlers, by and large, love and respect their fans, they have little more than disdain for those of us who write in such a manner as I am doing now, the frequent claim being that we have no right to dissect their performances because we've not done such performing ourselves. They have a point. However I usually find that it's those who have a chip on their shoulders, for whatever reason and in whatever way, who espouse such statements (JBL, I'm looking at you). And there certainly are some in the IWC who consider themselves to be an authority on a subject simply because they have an opinion and an internet connection. There are also those of us who take a little more pride than to "EPIC FAIL" our way through an article and call it a day. So, yes, there is a strong contingent of performers who have an ax to grind with respect to those of us who write about their profession, solely on-line or, in Oliver's case, in actually published form, which I think should garner much more respect.

However (and this is qualm number two I have in this regard), Hart continued in this vain, basically stating one of them had to go, and if not Oliver, then it would be him. Oliver's writing partner, Steve Johnson, did leave in the interest of keeping the peace, but Oliver remained, and Hart left, a number of other wrestlers with him, no doubt as a result of the common bond of wrestling fraternity, as certainly was the right of them all.

Second qualm first; Hart pulling the whole "this town isn't big enough for the both of us" spiel is absolutely petulant and, frankly, beneath him, as a legend of his stature and (especially) for a man of his age. I could ALMOST understand it when he pulled the same stunt in Michaels' when he was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame regard, having been long-time, real-life rivals, but to behave in this manner toward a journalist who was at that banquet because he, too, was being similarly recognized? Come on, Bret, you're better than that…aren't you? Oliver had EVERY RIGHT to be there and Hart had no right to demand that he leave. It was certainly Hart's right to accept on his father's behalf and leave with half the room afterward, before, or even DURING Oliver's time on the stage, as that would have sent message enough. But to make a case of it on stage during a speech was a poor call, ESPECIALLY when one considers the REASON Hart holds so much personal disdain for Oliver; Oliver has ranked both Hart, as a singles performer, as well as THE HART FOUNDATION much lower than Hart feels he should have ranked them in two of the books for which he was being honored that night. There again, do we see Hart acting out in fear of his legacy being tarnished, although it could be argued that behaving in such a manner does a hell of a lot more damage to the gravity that legacy carries than anything Flair could write about him.

Furthermore, although this award was Hart's to accept, it was not HIS, it was his father's. Hart turned what should have been a night to honor Stu's considerable contributions to the business into his own personal bitching post and, in turn, soiled what should have been a proud night for an accomplished writer in his chosen field for the gross sin of simply stating his opinion…in short, for doing his job. Hart has a right to feel the way he feels, he even had a right to say what he said, just not WHERE he said it. It seems to me Hart is plagued by compulsion to wave his own flag of righteousness in front of an audience that he knows will pat him on the back and support him, notwithstanding how he looks in the overall, which is ironic considering his desire (obsession…?) to be remembered as the best of all time. Perhaps, as he sees that title slipping away from him, he becomes increasingly interested in becoming a wrestling martyr to his idea of absolute truth?

I'll differ with other opinions shared on the subject by other writers on this site with respect to what Stu himself might have thought about this display, because, as far as I know, Stu might have been one of those wrestlers who walked out with Hart, I don't know, I didn't know the man. Behavior such as this lends a certain amount of credence to Michaels' claim when the heat between Hart and himself started brewing that Hart "took his ball and went home" following WrestleMania 12 and Michaels walked out of Anaheim with the belt, waiting for Michaels and the WWF to fall on its financial face without him, allowing the nagging injuries that had accumulated over the previous dozen years to heal up and come back at McMahon's behest, better than ever. It seems to me that Hart had a similar thought process when he left for WCW, that all his fans would turn on evil Vince and follow him to WCW and, boy, wouldn't Vince be sorry then! It amazes me that Hart to this day apparently labors under the misapprehension that Bischoff had big plans for him, especially in Canada (as Hart claims when responding to Flair's book), when it was plain to even me back THEN that Hart was simply a vanity purchase on Bischoff's part, to really stick to Vince and prove to him that he (Bischoff) could buy anyone in Vince's locker room, when Vince was simply clearing himself of $20 million with which to re-brand his company and, eventually, buy WCW outright (one wonders, had Hart not been forced into retirement, what he'd have done after WCW and ECW folded and there was not yet TNA…?).

It was comforting to see Bret Hart on Larry King in those tragic days following the Benoit atrocity. I, personally, felt relieved to see him looking so well, healthy and comfortable, horrible circumstances so close to home notwithstanding. Moreover, there was an air of…shall we say, wrestling paternity about him, an aura of regality, of authority, the way it could and should be. That's the way I want to see, remember and believe Hart to be. So why is he making it increasingly so DIFFICULT for me to do so?