For The Record 11.09.08: Avoiding the Montreal Incident
Posted by Kristopher Rodriguez on 11.09.2008
It has been 11 years since the infamous Montreal "Screwjob." In this week's edition of For the Record, we will be discussing the Montreal incident and how the whole fiasco could have been avoided.
The Montreal "Screwjob" was indeed unfortunate. Bret Hart gave Vince McMahon everything he had for over 14 years. To end his WWE run as the recipient of a double-cross was without question a kick below the belt. But of course, Hart owed his success and fame to McMahon and perhaps should have respected the owner's wishes. Regardless of who was right or wrong, wrestling fans learned two lessons. First, McMahon is capable of lying right to a person's face. And second, McMahon will do anything to protect his father's company.
Wrestling fans can legitimately take either Hart's side or McMahon's side when discussing the Montreal fiasco. But this article will not focus on who was the most righteous person on that dreadful night. The focus will be this: What simple steps could have been taken to avoid such a tense night in Montreal?
McMahon knew that taking the title off Hart in Montreal before millions of Canadian fans would be problematic for his departing veteran. And yet he still insisted on (A) Hart losing the title to his sworn enemy and (B) pushing for the title change in Montreal. Such a request was harsh even by McMahon's standards and perhaps the WWE owner could have been more sensitive to the situation. Below are a few common sense ways to accommodate the departing legend while enabling the company to keep face.
Bret Hart could have dropped the title before the Survivor Series. There were several occasions in the lead up to the pay-per-view when WWE could have pulled the trigger on a title change. For instance, McMahon could have easily opened a Raw with Hart losing the championship to Michaels via a miscommunication between Bret and the rest of the Hart Foundation. Let's say Owen accidentally struck his brother and that led to an HBK Superkick and quick fall. Michaels, quickly grabbing the belt and jogging back to the locker room could have stopped momentarily with a pompous smirk on his face as he witnesses the Hart Foundation meltdown. Bret could have slapped Owen in the face and –BAM- Canadian fans could have been treated to the final Hart encounter where Bret puts over his brother Owen one last time in Montreal.
Sure, some say that Owen was already scheduled to face Stone Cold at Survivor Series. But wouldn't McMahon have garnered amazing heat by changing his mind and telling Austin that he wasn't ready to face Owen Hart? McMahon could have easily thrown Austin into a traditional Survivor Series match and allowed Austin to eliminate an entire team or lay out all the members of both teams with a vintage Stone Cold tirade. Austin versus Owen could have waited for a later date. Okay, that is only one scenario that could have changed the mood of Survivor Series. But there's another simple scenario that could have avoided the "screwjob."
McMahon could have gone with the planned finish at Survivor Series but insisted that the belt stays in the hands of WWE officials before Hart took to the ring the next night on Raw. If McMahon was so fearful that Hart would take the belt to Nitro, ensuring that McMahon had a grip of the belt would have alleviated that concern. If Bret would have refused, McMahon could have cancelled the match altogether, confiscated the title, and created an impromptu match that would have crowned a new world champion. That way, McMahon could have kept face by saying that he had no choice but to cancel the match and the "screwjob" of sorts would have happened behind closed doors as opposed to on the air.
One can't help but wonder what McMahon thought Michaels would gain by winning the belt in Montreal. Michaels was already an iconic main eventer at that point. In fact, one could argue that Michaels was already a bigger star than Hart. Michaels's career was not going to "take off" by scoring a fall over the Hitman in Canada. McMahon's stubbornness and lack of creativity was partly to blame for the incident.
However, Hart is also culpable in the matter. He was fully aware of the "time honored tradition" of departing wrestlers putting over opponents. If Bret Hart was a so-called traditionalist, he should have heeded McMahon's request and put over whomever McMahon wished. And though putting over Michaels in Montreal might have been tough for Hart to swallow, it was the professional thing to do.
One thing Hart should have realized was WWE fans prefer clean finishes over no-contests. Canadian fans hardly ever get live pay-per-views and to give them a no-contest in the main event would have been moronic. Hart advocated for a double disqualification finish that would have seen the Hart Foundation and Degeneration X brawling as the show came to a close. I sincerely doubt that Canadian fans would have appreciated such a cop-out finish. They would have rather have seen a resolution to the feud with a clear winner and a clear loser. Ironically, Hart's proposed finish would have been a disservice to the very fans that he was trying to please. If Hart could have been a better sport, the "screwjob" could have been avoided.
Hart should have also realized that what he was advocating was not in McMahon's interest… not even in the slightest. Why, oh why, would Vince McMahon want to give a glorious exit to a guy who very well could have given WWE its final death knell? If handled properly, Bret Hart could have put WCW over the top. Hart at the time was the most sought after talent in professional wrestling since Hulk Hogan. He could have been a revolutionary figure in WCW and made WWE look like the bush leagues. Fortunately for McMahon, Hart's impact on Nitro was marginal. But in November of 1997, all McMahon knew was that he star he created was about to join WCW and contribute towards Eric Bischoff's efforts to put WWE out of business. McMahon, as I said above, will do anything to protect the company his father built. And if doing that means he has to lie to his workers' faces, he'll do it. Hart should have known that; where was his head?
I would now like to go beyond the specific hypotheticals. McMahon was put in a tough spot. Whether he did the right thing or not is open to debate. But what is beyond reasonable dispute is that in hindsight, Bret "screwed" Bret. We can obviously see what became of Vince McMahon after the "screwjob." WWE reached unheard of heights. McMahon became a billionaire and enjoyed blockbuster ratings. The WWE Chairman has no reason to be bitter over the incident. However, Hart must always live with the fact that because of his inability to evolve with the changing wrestling world, his career suffered. One of Hart's loudest complaints in his waning months with WWE was that the Hitman character was in limbo. He went from being the WWE's top babyface to becoming WWE's resident anti-American heel. So with WWE becoming more edgy and with Michaels emerging as the company's top heel, Hart felt out of place and worried that his character lacked direction. Because of that, he left WWE. Now of course Hart was also offered the richest contract in wrestling history from WCW to change companies. But according to Bret from the "Wresting with Shadows" documentary, his departure was not about the money. So if his departure was not about the money, it was about the direction of WWE and his Hitman character. And if Bret couldn't be THE top face or top heel, he wasn't satisfied.
Unfortunately for Hart, he missed the opportunity to develop a brilliantly nuanced character. Bret "Hitman" Hart was an amazing performer in 1997, both in the ring and on the mike. Everything he said was correct, and yet he was booed despite the veracity of his promos. It is much akin to Chris Jericho's gimmick of today. But Hart didn't understand that professional wrestling was in the midst of a movement that saw characters become more realistic and less cartoonish. He failed to realize how cutting edge his character was. Hart was tailor made for the emerging Attitude Era and the Hitman really missed the boat.
I am not trying to disparage or disrespect Bret Hart. I personally feel that he was one of the greatest wrestling legends of all-time, despite his misgivings. But with my admiration of Hart's achievements still intact, I will be the first to admit that Hart made his waning days in WWE more difficult than what was necessary. Of course, McMahon didn't help.
I think wrestling fans should be happy the Montreal Screwjob happened. Its one of the most exciting bits of wrestling lore out there, and we'd be poorer as fans without it.
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Great column, really thought provoking.
Posted By: Larry. C (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 10:46 AM
"Bret Screwed Bret"- Nuff Said
Posted By: Cross the Line (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 10:51 AM
WOW! great article.
Posted By: Davis (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 10:53 AM
One person could have made sure it was avoided completely:
Bret Hart.
Had he just dropped the title cleanly to Shawn on that night (like he should have, it's tradition), nothing bad would have happened.
Posted By: K-Money (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Very good article, but can writers please call it the WWF, which is what it was at the time? It didn't become the WWE until 2002 when the courts ruled for the World Wildlife Fund, forcing the name change.
Now, I think given the personalities of the two men involved, the screwjob was inevitable, and both share responsibility; Bret Hart perhaps more so because his demands were unreasonable.
Still, Bret Hart got screwed over by WCW every bit as badly as he got screwed by the WWF. Here was a top WWF main eventer with a great deal of credibility as a wrestler and they start out by putting him in the middle of the WCW/NWO war. He takes sides with WCW, but interferes in what appeared to be a legitimate 3 count (Patrick's count was supposed to be faster). His first PPV match was against Flair, for no real reason, then he feuds with B-level NWO member Curt Hennig. Then for absolutely no reason, he allies with them. He spends the rest of 1998 and most of 1999 as a midcarder, when he isn't out with an injury, or getting his head back in the game after Owen's death. He finally hits the main event and wins the WCW title two years after his debut (after Goldberg, DDP, Nash and others had their turn).
But the coup de gras was Starrcade 1999, when Bret was on the victorious side of a Montreal screwjob. The fact that Bret agreed with that showed that he had lost any integrity that he had.
Unfortunately, that would also be his last major match, as a Goldberg kick to the head gave him a concussion, and while he tried to work through it, he had to retire, throwing the Souled Out PPV into complete choas, leading to the demotion of RUsso, the rise of Kevin Sullivan and the defection of the faction that would become the Radicalz.
But that's a rant for another day.
Posted By: Michael L (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I'm an HBK mark so maybe my opinion is biased but I really feel Hart was mostly at fault. He was leaving and couldn't expect McMahon to bow to his every demand. It was Vinces job to keep his compay as strong as possible.
I also really like your point that Hart didn't "get it". He didn't realize which way the business was headed and had too much ego to be the #2 or 3 guy in the company.
Posted By: Justin Pelletier (Registered) on November 09, 2008 at 11:54 AM
When I see what Jericho is doing now, I've always felt that is what they should have done with Owen after Bret left.
Great cloumn.
Posted By: Karatgold24 (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Simple resolution to the screwjob:
Bret loses the title to Undertaker at a house show or on Raw, Taker loses to Shawn at HIAC at Bad Blood '97 cause of Kane,Bret loses to Shawn cause of Hart miscommunication at Survivor Series and exits. THERE!
Posted By: CntStopWntStop (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 12:20 PM
I think we can all agree that nobody was right in that situation. But I think that if you follow the chain reaction of events leading to the screwjob can be place squarely on Bret. I'm not going to defend anyone, nor will I villify anyone. Everyone did what they thought was best. Hindsight is 20/20, but it doesn't mean squat.
I wish that Bret had been in the WWE around 1998-2000 instead of WCW, both from a wrestling standpoint (Bret and Shawn left and the workrate plummetted) and for Bret's legacy. The idea of him facing Triple H or Kurt Angle or The Rock makes me feel...funny.
Posted By: The Joker (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 12:26 PM
My only gripe with the whole Montreal screwjob incident is with J.R. Now I know he's paid to say what Vince tells him to, but hear me out: Listen to his reaction after the match. He believes that Bret DID get screwed. Then listen to what he says AFTER his sit down interview with Vince (the infamous "Vince McMahon didn't screw Bret Hart, Bret Hart screwed Bret Hart). He flipflops his opinion & literally believes Vince's line with a "Oh, Vince is right! Bret DID screw Bret!"...so what made him change his opinion? Was it Bret punching Vince in the face afterward? Was it deliberate kissing up to the boss?
As luck would have it, WWE 24/7 should be showing the Raw AFTER the Survivor Series sometime in December & I can't wait to watch it again...hopefully it won't be edited.
Posted By: theoncomingstorm (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 01:42 PM
I respect both HBK and Bret Hart but I have always felt that Bret was mostly at fault for the screw job. He was leaving the company and Bret is supposed to be all about tradition and yet he refused to lose the WWF title in Montreal claiming its his home country. The problem with that is how many times to American wrestlers lose title in the U.S.? If it was his home town then I could maybe understand but he is not even from Montreal. Tradition should have been followed, even though he hated HBK, it was not Bret's company. He was leaving and the professional thing to do was drop the belt cleanly. The only reason Bret got that huge contract from WCW was because Vince made Bret such a huge star in the WWF and out of respect to Vince he should have dropped the belt. I also don't understand why Bret ot this day will not accept an apology from HBK and yet forgives Vince. Bret says he is over it but the fact he still won't forgive Shawn makes it seem that he is not.
Posted By: Spidey2885 (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 01:45 PM
It was me Austin...it was ME ALL ALONG!
Posted By: The Higher power (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 02:31 PM
I remember Ted DiBiase hit it on the head: "What does it matter what country you lose the belt in, the whole world's going to see it on TV anyway." I wrote about this a few weeks ago and while Vince was wrong in how he did it, Bret really should have shut up the ego and the idea that losing a wrestling belt was the equivelant of dropping an atom bomb in Montreal and just dropped the belt. But there's no denying this was the turning point of the Monday Night War as without it, we wouldn't have had the evil Mr. McMahon character to fire up against Austin.
Posted By: Michael Weyer (Registered) on November 09, 2008 at 03:54 PM
What I love about Vince preaching about the "time-honored tradition" is that in 1991, he brought Ric Flair in with the WCW belt, and presented it on tv. Vince is obviously a hypocrite in this situation. And Michaels "lost his smile" and refused to put over Hart, so I can't exactly blame Hart for refusing to job to HBK on his way out. I don't think it was ever about losing in Canada ( though it was insult to injury), but jobbing to HBK when a year earlier he did the same thing.
Posted By: Neuce6 (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 03:55 PM
Watch "Wrestling with Shadows", and take a look at the coward HBK deny his involvement when in the locker room with Bret. I don't really take a side, but if HBK felt so righteous about it, he should have had no problem owning up to it.
Posted By: George Dubya (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 04:00 PM
Am I the ONLY person on earth who thinks the entire "Screw Job" was and still is just another angle?
I mean think about it people... Why were there cameras filming everyone's reactions backstage that night? Bret just happened to be filming a personal documentery during this time?
I think not. The entire angle was good at portraying Vince as the supper heal and Bret as the super face in peril.
Posted By: Nicole (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 04:44 PM
What I love about Vince preaching about the "time-honored tradition" is that in 1991, he brought Ric Flair in with the WCW belt, and presented it on tv. Vince is obviously a hypocrite in this situation. And Michaels "lost his smile" and refused to put over Hart, so I can't exactly blame Hart for refusing to job to HBK on his way out. I don't think it was ever about losing in Canada ( though it was insult to injury), but jobbing to HBK when a year earlier he did the same thing.
Posted By: Neuce6 (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 03:55 PM
THE RIC FLAIR "REAL WORLDS CHAMPION" ANGLE CAME ABOUT AFTER FLAIR AND I BELIEVE BILL WATTS HAD SOME SORT OF BOOKING ISSUE. NWA WANTED THE BELT BACK AND RIC WANTED HIS $10,000 DEPOSIT FOR THE BELT. WATTS DIDNT HAVE THE MONEY SO FLAIR KEPT THE BELT. ITS NOT LIKE WCW DIDNT CHANGE THEIR BELT DESIGN BRIEFLY AFTER THE FACT.
Posted By: Ej (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 07:15 PM
Wonderful column! You make a BUNCH of very good points.
Posted By: CM Wolf (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 08:05 PM
Good article but I don't think the Hitman character had failed to move with the times. In fact, in 1997, Bret hart had become the most unique character in the wrestling world. He was the biggest babyface in the promotion whenever WWF toured Canada (which was often) and one of the biggest heels in the United States. This had never been seen before and created the "bizarro world" that Jerry Lawler often referred to when WWE promoted a PPV from Canada. Also, Bret Hart had signed the biggest wrestling contract ever seen for the WWF NOT for WCW - his lifetime 20 million dollar contract being broken by Vince who told Bret he couldn't afford it and encouraged him to open negotiations with WCW. Bret's WCW contract was nowhere near as big, and was probably less than what WCW was paying Hogan.
Posted By: APinOz (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 09:09 PM
Jesus Christ people!! I can't believe we STILL are talking about this after 11 years!!
It comes down to this. WWE is a entertainment company, always has been always will be. As athletic as it is, it is in no way a "real" sport in respect that it is a work.
Vince McMahon owns an entertainment company, no different from Fox, or Universal or Miramax. If Vince, as owner and boss, gives his employee an instruction on how he is to perform, it is up to his employee to carry out his instructions...PERIOD!
Harrison Ford doesn't stand up to Steven Spielberg and say "Yeah, I really don't think Indiana Jones should be doing this. Think of what my fans would say!"
Bret Hart is my favorite wrestler ever, but it is painfully obvious that the line between real life and the worked life of wrestling blurred into obscurity a LOOONNNG time ago.
Posted By: I'm Right! (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Can we stop beatin' that maggot ridden horse already? Yes Bret Hart made a real bonehead decision but then Shawn Michaels and Vince McMahon weren't exactly in the right either.
But you know what? Time marches on. None of it matters anymore.
Posted By: The Unknown Unknown (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 11:55 PM
No Nicole, your not the only one that thinks it was all a work. Anything that ends up on TV in wrestling is part of the work. It cemented the idea once I seen "Wrestling With Shadows". Wasn't it a little convenient that Bret had a camera crew during this whole period? Vince let an independent camera crew backstage? Some of the scenes seemed staged. Sunny playing with his kids? The camera crews being at Bret's house to shoot the phone conversations? Even some of the scenes at Stu Hart's Dungeon seemed fake.
The next night on Raw sets up the entire SCSA vs Mr. McMahon fued. They talk about Bret a little, then immediately switch to SCSA. Vince had to have seen the light, SCSA was selling a ton of merchandise by that point. Bret wasn't going to keep his top spot long, so he gave him an opportunity to go to WCW and cash a big fat check. I don't know if the entire thing was a work, but parts of it definitely were planned out.
Posted By: ghost of Marlon Brando (Guest) on November 10, 2008 at 12:19 AM
You know it is too bad that the Money in the Bank wasn't around back then. IT could have broken into a fight and someone could have cashed it in that night. Taking it from Bret. Great Article!
Posted By: T-Mac (Guest) on November 10, 2008 at 10:53 AM
I agree that the Owen/Bret scenario would have been ideal, as Bret would have no problem putting over his bro. Bret was growing stale and he new it. He wanted the big payday of WCW so he could retire from prowrestling forever.
Posted By: Adam (Guest) on November 10, 2008 at 11:20 AM
This is so ridiculous.
Bret signed a lower-than-WCW contract to stay with WWE that included RIGHTS to storylines.
WWE violated a written contract.
They had a month at least to work out a better method of moving the belt.
There are a thousand time tested storylines that could have been written up instead.
Many other well respected wrestlers were offended at the time by it, including Undertaker and Foley.
This all being said, there are probably hundreds of abuses in the wrestling world worse than this one. Wrestlers being saddled with bad gimmicks then discarded or underused, drug issues, lack of medical support, injuries galore..
Posted By: Guest22 (Guest) on November 10, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Vince screwed Vince on this one. He wanted to get Bret out of a contract so he had to bend to Bret's will, he gave him creative control.
In business the heads are more liable than anybody else, if a company gets caught dumping illegally its the head office that pays, not the guy actually doing it. Vince gave Creative Control to getout of a tight situation (budget wise), giving creative control to a guy with the title and LEAVING the company was just a bad idea by Vince.
Posted By: Curtis (Guest) on November 10, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.