rovert Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 With all credit to Meltzer's Montreal timeline and Bret's book but as an oral history their Greatest Rivalaries DVD is ridiculously compelling it is like a 30 for 30 ESPN documentary. Nevermind the interplay between the two. Highest possible recommendation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 With all credit to Meltzer's Montreal timeline and Bret's book but as an oral history their Greatest Rivalaries DVD is ridiculously compelling it is like a 30 for 30 ESPN documentary. Nevermind the interplay between the two. Highest possible recommendation I thought it wasn't out yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 With all credit to Meltzer's Montreal timeline and Bret's book but as an oral history their Greatest Rivalaries DVD is ridiculously compelling it is like a 30 for 30 ESPN documentary. Nevermind the interplay between the two. Highest possible recommendation I thought it wasn't out yet? Various smaller vendors have broken the street date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted October 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 With all credit to Meltzer's Montreal timeline and Bret's book but as an oral history their Greatest Rivalaries DVD is ridiculously compelling it is like a 30 for 30 ESPN documentary. Nevermind the interplay between the two. Highest possible recommendation I thought it wasn't out yet? Uncle Torrence has it. wink wink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 With all credit to Meltzer's Montreal timeline and Bret's book but as an oral history their Greatest Rivalaries DVD is ridiculously compelling it is like a 30 for 30 ESPN documentary. Nevermind the interplay between the two. Highest possible recommendation Just watched last night. Given all the HHH/Punk talk of late I found it amusing Bret & Shawn talked at length about WWE favoring big men and how hard it was to overcome that with their workrate. Shawn especially mentioning that until he got to the WWF his size was never an issue anywhear else he went and if it was it was seen as a positive with the bigger guys thinking that made it easier to get heat beating him up. Biggest thing I took away overall was that the Shawn's "i'll never put you over" line to Bret was the defining point of no return in their feud. For as much as they hated each other, had Shawn not said those few words 1st Bret would have had no problem putting him over in Montreal and the whole screw job mess would have never happened. Bret even went as far as to say that if Shawn would have changed his mind and put him over at Survivor Series he would have lost the belt the next night to him on RAW. Million dollar unanswered question i've still got that I don't think i've ever heard a good explanation for was if Bret was willing to drop it to literally anyone else on the whole roster on any other day leading up to SS why the hell didn't Vince just take him up on that offer??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Million dollar unanswered question i've still got that I don't think i've ever heard a good explanation for was if Bret was willing to drop it to literally anyone else on the whole roster on any other day leading up to SS why the hell didn't Vince just take him up on that offer??? I'm not sure Bret was quite as flexible as he makes out. People were expecting him to come into SS as champion, when push comes to shove I'm not sure he'd have dropped it before that date. It also might have hurt PPV buys at the time if Bret vs. Shawn wasn't a World title match. Also, Vince ultimately wanted the belt on Shawn, preferably directly, as he was the hottest heel in the company with Bret gone, and he wanted to build to Austin winning the title at WrestleMania. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 I've really come to see Vince's side of things for the Montreal screwjob. I kind of think if I was in his position I would've done the same thing. Hart leaving with the belt would've killed the company and it's easy to say now that he would've dropped the belt on Raw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 With all credit to Meltzer's Montreal timeline and Bret's book but as an oral history their Greatest Rivalaries DVD is ridiculously compelling it is like a 30 for 30 ESPN documentary. Nevermind the interplay between the two. Highest possible recommendation I hope it serves up to the hype, but since 30 for 30 is mentioned, for rivalry docs, I really gotta wonder if it'll be as good as Unmatched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 I've really come to see Vince's side of things for the Montreal screwjob. I kind of think if I was in his position I would've done the same thing. Hart leaving with the belt would've killed the company and it's easy to say now that he would've dropped the belt on Raw. Here's my two cents on a subject that has been beyond discussed to death... I think "Hart leaving with the belt" has been a misconception over the years. I don't think Hart would have ever left the WWF with the belt and appeared on Nitro with it. If the screwjob had never happened, there was no reason for Bret (who respected Vince, the WWF, and the opportunity he had been granted to advance to the main event/big money spot over the years) to not drop the belt; maybe not to Shawn at SS, yes, but I have no doubt he would have put somebody over somewhere before he left. The problem, as Vince and others saw it, and the reason they believed it was imperative the switch go down in Montreal, was Bischoff would announce on the Monday after SS that WCW had signed the reigning WWF champ, delivering yet another blow to the credibility of a company that was still losing the War by substantial margin (although gaining momentum). I also think Vince's ego was bruised by not being able to get Bret to agree to his plans and dictate the title switch, and for a control freak like him (and during a very stressful time) this may have been too much to stomach. It was a complex and unique situation, with a relatively simple thing like a title switch almost becoming a metaphor/battleground for the larger real life conflicts between Bret and Shawn and Vince and Eric. And we will never stop talking about it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 The plan was for Bret to drop the belt at the December ppv anyway. In hindsight announcing Bret was going to WCW probably would of helped the WWF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Million dollar unanswered question i've still got that I don't think i've ever heard a good explanation for was if Bret was willing to drop it to literally anyone else on the whole roster on any other day leading up to SS why the hell didn't Vince just take him up on that offer??? I'm not sure Bret was quite as flexible as he makes out. People were expecting him to come into SS as champion, when push comes to shove I'm not sure he'd have dropped it before that date. It also might have hurt PPV buys at the time if Bret vs. Shawn wasn't a World title match. Bret outright said in his book that he felt that he shouldn't drop it before the PPV for that very reason. In realistic terms, with Bret still under contract for a few weeks, the only thing Vince was risking was Bischoff announcing the signing on Nitro. In the Observer transcript of the extended version of the Bret-Vince conversation from the Wrestling With Shadows raw footage, Vince said that it didn't really matter since everyone knew anyway. So the issue is if he was lying or was paranoid enough to enough to expect Bret to violate the contract and Bischoff to invite further legal action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 I like how randomly, every few years Dave will blame HHH for everything that happened, that point will pretty much go no-sold by everyone, and it won't be mentioned again for a few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Michaels mentions HHH's role in passing on the DVD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 In realistic terms, with Bret still under contract for a few weeks, the only thing Vince was risking was Bischoff announcing the signing on Nitro. In the Observer transcript of the extended version of the Bret-Vince conversation from the Wrestling With Shadows raw footage, Vince said that it didn't really matter since everyone knew anyway. So the issue is if he was lying or was paranoid enough to enough to expect Bret to violate the contract and Bischoff to invite further legal action. It's worth adding that in the days before SS Bret was on Off The Record speaking very frankly and openly about his dissatisfaction at the current direction of WWF programming, and acknowledging the rumours that he might jump ship to WCW. I think "everyone knew anyway" would be an exaggeration, but the hardcore, online fans knew something was up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 In realistic terms, with Bret still under contract for a few weeks, the only thing Vince was risking was Bischoff announcing the signing on Nitro. In the Observer transcript of the extended version of the Bret-Vince conversation from the Wrestling With Shadows raw footage, Vince said that it didn't really matter since everyone knew anyway. So the issue is if he was lying or was paranoid enough to enough to expect Bret to violate the contract and Bischoff to invite further legal action. It's worth adding that in the days before SS Bret was on Off The Record speaking very frankly and openly about his dissatisfaction at the current direction of WWF programming, and acknowledging the rumours that he might jump ship to WCW. I think "everyone knew anyway" would be an exaggeration, but the hardcore, online fans knew something was up. I'm using Vince and Bret's wording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 I think HHH is the guy who comes off the worst in Bret's book, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Montreal is entirely Vince's fault. He signed Bret to a contract that he was unwilling (I don't buy "unable") to honor, then told him "oops, I can't afford you, go to WCW." If WCW wasn't so inept this would have killed his negotiating leverage with them so it was fucked up on two levels. If Bret wasn't such a mark for himself he likely could have sued for breach of contract (though I don't know the finer details and if McMahon had some sort of "out" on the deal within a certain agreed upon frame of time - that strikes me as unlikely). Still the whole thing is Vince's fault. He chose not to honor his contract and chose to put the title on a guy he was planning to fuck contractually at minimum all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 I think HHH is the guy who comes off the worst in Bret's book, actually. HHH has an amazing ability to come off poorly in any given situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 I think HHH is the guy who comes off the worst in Bret's book, actually. He does and it's amazing what a difference a few years makes with respect to HHH/Hart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Loss & Will: can you split Montreal off into its own thread. It's never anything that goes short enough to be a "Comments that do not appear to warrant threads of their own" topic. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Morris Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Some points regarding Montreal: * When Dave Meltzer in his summary talked about Bret willing to put people over, I don't think he meant "people he was willing to drop the belt to." As has been discussed, putting somebody over doesn't necessarily mean losing a match to them. As examples, Bret got a non-title match with HHH changed from a screwy pinfall to a count out loss, but he tapped out for Ken Shamrock in a match that went to a no contest. It's been a long time since I've seen the matches, but as I recall, the way things went down, he put Shamrock over but not HHH. That's more what Dave was talking about. * I agree there would have been no chance of Bret showing up on Nitro the night after Survivor Series. He would have been in violation of the 30-day notice period and he knew it. If that wasn't an issue, the instant Montreal went down, he would have boarded a plane to Nitro to stick it to Vince right then and there. * Really, I think both Bret and Vince were paranoid about things: Bret about losing his status as a top guy and Vince about what Ted Turner would do (I would say Bischoff, but with Vince, it was Turner he was paranoid about and I'm sure he thinks everything Bischoff did, Turner was behind it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 One thing Bret mentions in the DVD is that he agreed to drop the belt to Shawn on Raw if Shawn put him over on the PPV to show he was willing to do the right thing after the "I'm not okay with doing the job for you even though you're fine with putting me over" conversation. Also, am I correct in saying that Bret having passed his required dates and not even having to work if he wanted to something that never came out before the DVD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Also, Vince ultimately wanted the belt on Shawn, preferably directly The directly part is what I don't get. I've never heard anyone refute Bret's claim that he brought up the idea of droping it to someone else, whether he really would have is irrelevant since Vince seemed hell bent on "Bret MUST lose to Shawn and it MUST be at Survivor Series" with no room for compromise Michaels mentions HHH's role in passing on the DVD. That's kind of underselling things actually. They don't go into great detail but Shawn flat out says HHH was the one who came up with the idea. Paraphrasing, the conversation went something along the lines of Vince telling them "Bret wants to do a DQ or something" and HHH responding "Fuck that if he won't do business we'll do business for him" and then Vince & Shawn being kind of taken back by the idea for a second before coming around and Vince agreeing. Really of everyone involved Shawn sounds like the guy who needed the most convinving to go through with it though that was mainly because he was worried about the aftermath and the heat he'd get. Also, am I correct in saying that Bret having passed his required dates and not even having to work if he wanted to something that never came out before the DVD? Yeah that part was new to me as well. Also that Bret thinks Hebner may not have known about things until right before the match was going to start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Also, am I correct in saying that Bret having passed his required dates and not even having to work if he wanted to something that never came out before the DVD? That seems like something that should have been in Bret's book considering how amazingly detailed it was, but I honestly don't remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 I'm almost 100% sure I've read/heard about the Bret exceeding his dates part before. I'm thinking it was in his book, but I'm too lazy to check right now. Or he may have mentioned it on Off the Record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.