Who was better: Bret Hart, or Shawn Michaels?

[Everlong]

These two were major rivals for much of their careers, carried the WWF through some difficult times and were two parts of one of the biggest controversies in the history of the industry.

Simple question: who was better? The Hitman, or Mr. Wrestlemania?

[Kyle]

It really depends on what you define. Bret was better in the ring but Michaels had the more overall package.

Anyway, Bret. There have been few men who were better than him in the ring.

[rawisjericho]

I always liked HBK more than Bret. Bret was a better technical wrestler, but Shawn was more exciting in the ring. Being a high flyer added greatly to that. Both had good ring psychology. The real life animosity between the two was what made that one of the greatest rivalries in WWE history. I never liked Bret's persona, with the exception of his heel run after WM 13, up to the screwjob, in the process, along with Stone Cold, led to the creation of the Mr. McMahon character.

[Settee]

Shawn Michaels without a doubt. There is a reason he got the name Mr. Wrestlemania.

[UTK]

I was never really that fond of Bret. I appreciated his wrestling, but I just liked Michaels much more overall.

[PorkChop]

I was never really that fond of Bret. I appreciated his wrestling, but I just liked Michaels much more overall.

Came here to post this, basically.

[Everlong]

As for my personal opinion, I'd go Bret all day.

Not only was he the best pure wrestler in the history of the WWE, but he was supremely underrated in terms of his mic skills. Everyone seems to have this idea that he was boring on the stick, and while he wasn't a Rock or a Punk or someone like that, when he spoke people listened. Plus, I think Bret just has more matches that I'd rank among my personal favorites than Shawn does.

[Hanley!]

Definitely Bret. Both were good wrestlers, but Bret was leagues ahead of Michaels in terms of psychology and storytelling. Michaels was an exciting in ring performer with some great moves that could put on great matches, but Bret could make you invest that much more. He didn't just create a showstopping performance, he made you care about who won or lost. He created an emotional bond with the audience. I don't think Michaels ever did that to the same extent.

And I agree that he was vastly underrated as a personality and on the microphone. He gave his angles an element of realism. It felt like he believed in everything he was doing and wasn't simply putting on a show. And his mic work after his American heel turn was particularly strong.

It feels like public opinion might have moved more strongly in Michaels favour because his stuff has now been getting plugged by WWE for a lot longer than Bret's. But I do think that the Canadian was superior overall.

[Settee]

Definitely Bret. Both were good wrestlers, but Bret was leagues ahead of Michaels in terms of psychology and storytelling. Michaels was an exciting in ring performer with some great moves that could put on great matches, but Bret could make you invest that much more. He didn't just create a showstopping performance, he made you care about who won or lost. He created an emotional bond with the audience. I don't think Michaels ever did that to the same extent.

And I agree that he was vastly underrated as a personality and on the microphone. He gave his angles an element of realism. It felt like he believed in everything he was doing and wasn't simply putting on a show. And his mic work after his American heel turn was particularly strong.

It feels like public opinion might have moved more strongly in Michaels favour because his stuff has now been getting plugged by WWE for a lot longer than Bret's. But I do think that the Canadian was superior overall.

I think that Bret has really buried his own legacy by being such a bitter old man.

[Everlong]

^Bitter about what, Owen, or the Montreal Screwjob? If it's the former, you certainly can't blame him. If it's the latter, well, I can't really put myself in his shoes for that situation, so I can't make any judgments.

[PremiumChaos]

Man that's tough but I will have to go with Shawn Michaels. He had a more interesting and arguably better career. Not to mention he was a better all rounder. Bret was of course the better wrestler but when you hear the word best you can't give it to anyone other than Shawn Michaels.

[prophet]

These types of discussion all boil down to personal preference really. So I'll pick HBK because he's the greatest of all time. Growing up I never really appreciated Bret's wrestling ability and so I only realised how good he was as I got older.

[Hanley!]

Wow, this is even more one-sided than usual. Bret deserves more love, guys.

[ShaneOfan]

As much as I don't care for Bret Hart, he is much better over all than HBK ever was.

[Everlong]

Wow, this is even more one-sided than usual. Bret deserves more love, guys.

I was thinking the same. Normally this gets a pretty even split!

[VaderBomb]

Definitely Bret. Both were good wrestlers, but Bret was leagues ahead of Michaels in terms of psychology and storytelling. Michaels was an exciting in ring performer with some great moves that could put on great matches, but Bret could make you invest that much more. He didn't just create a showstopping performance, he made you care about who won or lost. He created an emotional bond with the audience. I don't think Michaels ever did that to the same extent.

And I agree that he was vastly underrated as a personality and on the microphone. He gave his angles an element of realism. It felt like he believed in everything he was doing and wasn't simply putting on a show. And his mic work after his American heel turn was particularly strong.

It feels like public opinion might have moved more strongly in Michaels favour because his stuff has now been getting plugged by WWE for a lot longer than Bret's. But I do think that the Canadian was superior overall.

I agree with all of this. Bret Hart was better.