Just finished listening to Chuck Klosterman on the Bill Simmons' podcast. Usual good discussion, but I have some thoughts on their steroid discussion. Klosterman asked Simmons why he had a problem with athletes taking HGH or blood doping or whatever*. Simmons had a couple of responses. Simmons' response ranged from fairness to curiosity about who is actually doing it. Here are my thoughts:
1.) Performance enhancing isn't bad. Proper nutrition and and weight training are performance enhancing. Ditto for Lasik and Tommy John surgery. One of Simmons' refrains is that he doesn't understand how moving tendons around or using bits from cadavers is any worse than using whatever A-Rod or Manny or Lance did. There is a difference.
2.) Steroids are banned not because they make you better at sports. They are banned because of the side effects that come with them. Per some article I googled, side effects to HGH can include heart disease, joint pain, and diabetes. It doesn't seem like the data on this is great and that work with this stuff is ongoing. Blood doping can also cause cardiovascular problems.
Generally speaking, I'm fine with people making their own choices and living with the consequences. If some doofus wants to drink or smoke too much (me) and wreck his (my) body, that's his (my) problem. This doesn't apply to sports though.
Banning this stuff makes sense because of the no-choice choice that players would be faced with. Cheaters force non-cheaters to consider steroids. What would you do if you were a marginal talent and were faced with the choice of taking steroids or losing your job? On the one hand, you're risking heart problems, diabetes, and God knows what. On the other, if your primary skill is throwing curveballs, you probably aren't good at many non-baseball things and still need to take care of your family. That is an unfair choice.
3.) Simmons also marveled that his BFF's 93 year old grandma was taking prescription HGH. The implication was that: if it's ok for her, why not good enough for athletes? This is wrong. In medicine, tradeoffs are made all the time. Consquences are weighed with the guidance of a doctor and patients make calls. For instance, my wife has been prescribed prednisone. The side effects are horrible, but not nearly as bad as her pre-existing joint pain.
I have no idea what the underlying condition was that lead to Dave Jacoby's grandma being prescribed HGH. I'm sure that the severity of that condition was weighed against possible long-term complications and side-effects. A big consideration was probably the likelihood that grammy wouldn't be around for any long-term problems. Because she is old.
It is very easy to differentiate Jacoby's probably-already-dead grandma and a thirty something athlete.
*For clarity, I will refer to all banned, performance enhancing substances as steroids unless otherwise noted. This will also include stuff like blood doping or amphetamines.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Wrestling Thoughts: Value Over Replacement Grappler
Recently listened to Wrestlespective's episode on Bash at the Beach 2000. Excellent as always, but I did have one note on the discussion. At one point, Jason referred to Jeff Jarrett as a "replacement level" wrestler. Jason went on to say that Jarrett was essentially an average wrestler. I agree with him that Jarrett was an average or mediocre wrestler, but I do think that it is important to distinguish between replacement level and average.
In baseball, replacement level is the point at which a player could be replaced with a minimum salary player at the minor league level. Wikipedia uses the term "freely available talent." Hardball Times aptly describes it as "the level of talent at which teams stop competing for your services, and you end up competing for the last handful of open roster spots." Luminaries who fit the bill in baseball can be found over at Fan Graphs.
In that sense, Jarrett isn't really a replacement level grappler. On the current WWE roster, Camacho or Jinder Mahal would be replacement level guys. If you don't factor in charisma or mic skills, a guy like Heath Slater would be there too. Bart Gunn or the Headbangers would be examples of Attitude Era replacement level guys. Dating back to my early days as a fan, Beau Beverly or Skinner.
Just to be clear, Jarrett remains incredibly annoying.
In baseball, replacement level is the point at which a player could be replaced with a minimum salary player at the minor league level. Wikipedia uses the term "freely available talent." Hardball Times aptly describes it as "the level of talent at which teams stop competing for your services, and you end up competing for the last handful of open roster spots." Luminaries who fit the bill in baseball can be found over at Fan Graphs.
In that sense, Jarrett isn't really a replacement level grappler. On the current WWE roster, Camacho or Jinder Mahal would be replacement level guys. If you don't factor in charisma or mic skills, a guy like Heath Slater would be there too. Bart Gunn or the Headbangers would be examples of Attitude Era replacement level guys. Dating back to my early days as a fan, Beau Beverly or Skinner.
Just to be clear, Jarrett remains incredibly annoying.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Rhodey Thoughts: When Economic Development isn't Economic Development
This morning I had a twitter exchange with Bob Plain of RIFutute.org (@bobplain). The conversation started with Bob tweeting: "Rocky Point State Park = way better for #RI economy than tax breaks for the rich and powerful. http://ow.ly/hqF9W". A fun back and forth ensued about whether or not the two are really related. I happily earned a precious follow and moved on. Some thoughts though:
1.) Why can't buying greenspace be its own end? I'm for the purchase of the Rocky Point, but my reasons for it have nothing to do economic development. It's a beautiful spot and historic-ish site. The price seems pretty reasonable considering the amount of land and the waterfront location. In a vacuum I'd rather see it as a park than condos. That should be enough.
2.) Saying it should be done because it will stimulate/help/massage the economy is a pretty weak argument. As a Hendricken grad and lover of Warwick, I find Bob's assertion that this purchase will embolden people to move to or visit RI by adding it our list of amenities pretty silly.
One, large groups of consumers aren't going to decide to visit Rhode Island because of Rocky Point Park.
Two, if the park does draw visitors, regardless of where they are from, it would be tough to argue that it would benefit anyone other than those visitors or neighbors of the park. I believe that the only business on Warwick Neck is a convenience store. I hope that those folks do well and benefit from there being a big beautiful park down the road. I don't think that a $9M investment can be justified on the back of Warwick Neck General Store selling more sundries.
Three, is anyone going to move to Rhode Island because of this park? Rhode Island already has beautiful parks. I had the privilege of living near Colt State Park and the bike path. It was amazing and I miss it. Goddard Park is a true treasure. In the aggregate, they make living in Rhode Island a better experience. Will a new greenspace at Rocky Point move the needle for anyone already thinking of moving to the state? Saying that economic development is nuanced and moving on without supporting it in any way isn't an argument.
Don't confuse these three points with saying that we shouldn't buy the land. Good price and opportunities for real estate like this don't pop up everyday. You buy the land because parks are beautiful and it makes the lives of residents better. Calling it economic development is a false way to bolster an argument for the acquisition.
3.) Is this a new trend? In the buildup of the recent passage of the marriage equality bill in the House, Governor Chafee claimed that passing the bill would be good for Rhode Island's economy. The Governor's logic was a wee bit tortured in my book. My question is: if it makes sense and is a civil rights issue, isn't that enough? That should be the end of your case. If denying marriage to same sex couples is discrimination, that should do it. No need to try to stretch yourself to make a point.
If citing the economy as a reason is this decade's new trend will it become last decade's "don't support the terrorists" argument? Remember when there was a commercial that said buying marijuana helped support the terrorists?
Drugs are a cancer on our society and that's why we should concerned about them. Our leaders shouldn't have needed to wave the terrorist flag to make their arguments. Same goes for policy today. It is sound or it is not. Lamely stating that it's good for the economy with no actual data or insight does nothing.
4.) Let's take Bob at face value and assume that the Rocky Point Park will be a factor in whether an individual or company decides to make her home in Rhode Island. Would it also be fair to say that an anti "tax breaks for the rich" policy might count as a strike against?
5. ) I disagree with just about everything Bob says, but he is worth reading. You can find him at RIFutute.org.
1.) Why can't buying greenspace be its own end? I'm for the purchase of the Rocky Point, but my reasons for it have nothing to do economic development. It's a beautiful spot and historic-ish site. The price seems pretty reasonable considering the amount of land and the waterfront location. In a vacuum I'd rather see it as a park than condos. That should be enough.
2.) Saying it should be done because it will stimulate/help/massage the economy is a pretty weak argument. As a Hendricken grad and lover of Warwick, I find Bob's assertion that this purchase will embolden people to move to or visit RI by adding it our list of amenities pretty silly.
One, large groups of consumers aren't going to decide to visit Rhode Island because of Rocky Point Park.
Two, if the park does draw visitors, regardless of where they are from, it would be tough to argue that it would benefit anyone other than those visitors or neighbors of the park. I believe that the only business on Warwick Neck is a convenience store. I hope that those folks do well and benefit from there being a big beautiful park down the road. I don't think that a $9M investment can be justified on the back of Warwick Neck General Store selling more sundries.
Three, is anyone going to move to Rhode Island because of this park? Rhode Island already has beautiful parks. I had the privilege of living near Colt State Park and the bike path. It was amazing and I miss it. Goddard Park is a true treasure. In the aggregate, they make living in Rhode Island a better experience. Will a new greenspace at Rocky Point move the needle for anyone already thinking of moving to the state? Saying that economic development is nuanced and moving on without supporting it in any way isn't an argument.
Don't confuse these three points with saying that we shouldn't buy the land. Good price and opportunities for real estate like this don't pop up everyday. You buy the land because parks are beautiful and it makes the lives of residents better. Calling it economic development is a false way to bolster an argument for the acquisition.
3.) Is this a new trend? In the buildup of the recent passage of the marriage equality bill in the House, Governor Chafee claimed that passing the bill would be good for Rhode Island's economy. The Governor's logic was a wee bit tortured in my book. My question is: if it makes sense and is a civil rights issue, isn't that enough? That should be the end of your case. If denying marriage to same sex couples is discrimination, that should do it. No need to try to stretch yourself to make a point.
If citing the economy as a reason is this decade's new trend will it become last decade's "don't support the terrorists" argument? Remember when there was a commercial that said buying marijuana helped support the terrorists?
4.) Let's take Bob at face value and assume that the Rocky Point Park will be a factor in whether an individual or company decides to make her home in Rhode Island. Would it also be fair to say that an anti "tax breaks for the rich" policy might count as a strike against?
5. ) I disagree with just about everything Bob says, but he is worth reading. You can find him at RIFutute.org.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Movie Thoughts: Zero Dark Thirty
1.) Really enjoyed the acting in this one. With the exception of Jessica Chastain, there isn't a ton of time spent developing other characters. The whole thing comes together really well. Even characters that we see a little bit of give us enough to have a sense of who they are. Remember the Fugitive with Harrison Ford. It's like that. The background/secondary characters aren't flat and they work.
2.) I cannot get enough of Chris Pratt. Pratt is best known for playing Andy on Parks and Rec. He's in this movie and is fantastic in the little bit that he's been given. This is the second movie inspired by a true story that he's killed it in. He was great as Scott Hatteberg in Moneyball as well.
3.) Book dovetails nicely with my recent reading of Decision Points which I reviewed. I felt much higher stakes having read W's memoirs.
4.) Zero Dark Thirty raised issues of the efficiency and ethics of torture that have been dormant since W turned the keys over to President Obama.* I'd like to take this opportunity to point you towards one of my favorite authors over at BaseballCrank.com, Dan McLaughlin. The first essay I'd suggest is titled With the Death of Osama bin Laden, We're All Hawks Now. I mainly agree with the whole essay. The only spot I think that Crank stretches is Point B RE: Iraq, which reeks of a proximate cause problem. The second essay is Inconvenient Facts About The Takedown of Osama bin Laden. Great essay about torture and the conversation about torture. He's a must follow at @BaseballCrank.
5.) Spoilers! Osama bin Laden is dead. In spite of knowing how the story ends, the final 25 minutes are tense and fantastic. Kind of reminds me of Apollo 13 in that respect.
6.) I'll always remember the morning I found out that bin Laden had been snuffed out. I got dressed to the following song:
RECOMMENDATION: Must see for everyone over the age of 14. Not much to be squemish about here. Great movie.
* Why am I so comfortable using "W" when referencing George W. Bush, but hesitant to short President Barack Obama? Must be some desire to make nice with my left-leaning friends.
2.) I cannot get enough of Chris Pratt. Pratt is best known for playing Andy on Parks and Rec. He's in this movie and is fantastic in the little bit that he's been given. This is the second movie inspired by a true story that he's killed it in. He was great as Scott Hatteberg in Moneyball as well.
3.) Book dovetails nicely with my recent reading of Decision Points which I reviewed. I felt much higher stakes having read W's memoirs.
4.) Zero Dark Thirty raised issues of the efficiency and ethics of torture that have been dormant since W turned the keys over to President Obama.* I'd like to take this opportunity to point you towards one of my favorite authors over at BaseballCrank.com, Dan McLaughlin. The first essay I'd suggest is titled With the Death of Osama bin Laden, We're All Hawks Now. I mainly agree with the whole essay. The only spot I think that Crank stretches is Point B RE: Iraq, which reeks of a proximate cause problem. The second essay is Inconvenient Facts About The Takedown of Osama bin Laden. Great essay about torture and the conversation about torture. He's a must follow at @BaseballCrank.
5.) Spoilers! Osama bin Laden is dead. In spite of knowing how the story ends, the final 25 minutes are tense and fantastic. Kind of reminds me of Apollo 13 in that respect.
6.) I'll always remember the morning I found out that bin Laden had been snuffed out. I got dressed to the following song:
RECOMMENDATION: Must see for everyone over the age of 14. Not much to be squemish about here. Great movie.
* Why am I so comfortable using "W" when referencing George W. Bush, but hesitant to short President Barack Obama? Must be some desire to make nice with my left-leaning friends.
Book Thoughts: Decision Points by George W. Bush
Inspired by the 2012 presidential elections, I decided to pick up Decision Points by W. Since I am not a professional reviewer, I will keep this brief and to a few points.
1.) Although I am sure that W had some help here, it is very much in his voice. I would turn to YouTube throughout the book to relive particular moments or speeches and it felt very in tune with voice.
2.) One of the big lessons from Romney's loss is that conservative's need to make voters know that we care about them. W understood this a long time ago. Many mocked compassionate conservatism, but it got results and was a policy priority. Major initiatives included AIDS relief in Africa and immigration reform that respected the place of hard-working illegal immigrants in the country.
3.) W is really likeable. He adores his mom. He gives a ton of credit to staffers for things that go well and takes responsibility for the administration's failures. At one point, he tells the story of a Yale professor, who made an impression on W in college, remarked that W was an unremarkable student and that he didn't leave an impression. W's reply was that irregardless of how the professor felt, W would never forget the professor. How could people hate this guy?
4.) The chapter on September 11th and W's connection with U.S. troops is heartbreaking. So human. Brought tears to my eyes more than once.
5.) My favorite picture in the book is a picture of W in his pickup with his dog and "buddy" Barney. RIP. See below.
RECOMMENDATION: Must read if you are interested interested contemporary politics, presidential history, September 11th and the war on terror, and politics generally. The book is very readable and won't anger friends on the Left.*
*Won't be using stars in my reviews of books or movies or whatever. Ratings will be something like "Must [consume] for everyone", "Must [consume] for everyone interested in X,Y,Z", "Only [consume] if you're interested in X,Y,Z", "Eh, whatever", and "You should probably just watch Man on Fire. Denzel is really good in that." Ratings are subject to revision.
1.) Although I am sure that W had some help here, it is very much in his voice. I would turn to YouTube throughout the book to relive particular moments or speeches and it felt very in tune with voice.
2.) One of the big lessons from Romney's loss is that conservative's need to make voters know that we care about them. W understood this a long time ago. Many mocked compassionate conservatism, but it got results and was a policy priority. Major initiatives included AIDS relief in Africa and immigration reform that respected the place of hard-working illegal immigrants in the country.
3.) W is really likeable. He adores his mom. He gives a ton of credit to staffers for things that go well and takes responsibility for the administration's failures. At one point, he tells the story of a Yale professor, who made an impression on W in college, remarked that W was an unremarkable student and that he didn't leave an impression. W's reply was that irregardless of how the professor felt, W would never forget the professor. How could people hate this guy?
4.) The chapter on September 11th and W's connection with U.S. troops is heartbreaking. So human. Brought tears to my eyes more than once.
5.) My favorite picture in the book is a picture of W in his pickup with his dog and "buddy" Barney. RIP. See below.
RECOMMENDATION: Must read if you are interested interested contemporary politics, presidential history, September 11th and the war on terror, and politics generally. The book is very readable and won't anger friends on the Left.*
*Won't be using stars in my reviews of books or movies or whatever. Ratings will be something like "Must [consume] for everyone", "Must [consume] for everyone interested in X,Y,Z", "Only [consume] if you're interested in X,Y,Z", "Eh, whatever", and "You should probably just watch Man on Fire. Denzel is really good in that." Ratings are subject to revision.
Why is Bret Hart so angry?
A recent episode of International Object got me thinking about Bret Hart. K. Sawyer Paul (@IntlObject) expressed a lot of discomfort with Bret Hart's attitude about his own legacy. I've had similar feelings and this essay will look to explore how the Hitman got there and look at his time as a singles competitor in the WWF.
Bret Hart winning the WWF title in 1992 was the first surprise that I experienced as a fan of pro wrestling.* Bret won the title in the fall that year by defeating Ric Flair. Flair had only been in my life for about a year as an active wrestler. I knew that he was a legend in WCW/NWA due to magazines like Pro Wrestling Illustrated, but I never saw a single match of his until he came to the WWF. I did know that he was a legend and that legends don't usually lose to guys like Bret Hart.
Bret Hart was different from previous World Champs. Guys like Hogan and Warrior were super human. They were also crazy and prone to say non-sense. Bret came across as a smart guy. I identified with him because of it. His cleverness set him apart. I first got hooked on the pink and black during Hart's match with Mr. Perfect at SummerSlam 1991. Hart won the Intercontinental Championship with a surprising counter that lead into the Sharpshooter, his finisher. It was out of nowhere and a stark contrast to Hulk Hogan's slow and predictable workup to the atomic leg drop.
There have been several suggestions on why Vince McMahon decided to go with Bret.** Some have suggested that it was because of McMahon's steroid trial a desire to showcase a less-muscled champion. There is also the possibility that Macho Man, Flair, and the Ultimate Warrior were not connecting enough with the fans to keep in the spotlight.*** Irregardless, he got the job as the guy and he would be tie together the next five years for the company.
After a year of being the work horse, Bret got the ball in 1992. Hart would main event Survivor Series 1992 as champion. Vince McMahon would spend the next 5 years trying to undo it. Vince would look away from Bret and towards a varied array of stars to be the focus of the WWF. Despite trying everything under the sun, he eventually would also come back around to the Hitman. The era crests with WrestleMania 10 and ends when with a final Bret/Shawn encounter in which Vince completely and totally ends the Hitman era.
Hart was undermined in a way that other centerpieces have never been since mid-1980s. Fittingly, it would be Hogan who would first steal the spotlight by defeating Yokozuna moments after he had defeated the Hitman. By the summer, Hogan would be gone and replaced with Lex Luger. Luger was a muscled up, recently turned good guy who looked more like the Ultimate Warrior and Hogan. Luger even copied Hogan's love of America and super posedown at the end of PPVs.
Luger would remain at the top of the card through Wrestlemania X. There is more to the art of wrestling than when matches occur on the card and Hart made the most of his feud with Jerry Lawler. Luger would fail to connect with the fans and Hart would reclaim the conch with a title victory over Yokozuna in 1994. This point represented the artistic highpoint of Hart's reign. He had fantastic matches with Owen Hart, Bob Backlund, and Diesel after he lost the title in early 1995.
The Hitman did not have a good 1995 into 1996. After finishing his feud with Backlund in a disappointing "I quit" match, Hart listed along competing against Hakushi, Isaac Yankem, DDS, and one of the Quebecers. Hart would win his third title at Survivor Series in a fantastic match, but then would knock around match-to-match biding time before he would drop the title to Shawn Michaels.
It is during this period that it became obvious that Vince McMahon was uncomfortable with Hart at the top of the card or as the focus of the show. Even as champion, the Hitman was really the fouth biggest thing on the program.**** Michaels' boyhood dream dominated pre-Rumble through Wrestlemania 12. Bret's PPV matches with Diesel and Undertaker existed to get that feud going. As the Diesel/Kevin Nash experience faltered, Hart would be used to showcase Shawn Michaels.
Hart would return to the ring at Survivor Series 1996 and ultimately find his voice as a heel. Through SummerSlam 97, he would have iconic matches against Stone Cold and Undertaker. Hart was able to pivot his character without changing the core of who that character was. Instead of being the tenacious competitor who outsmarted his opponents, he became the bitter veteran who couldn't understand that the game had changed around him.
In my reading and listening, people do not tend to look back too fondly on the early-to-mid 1990s in the WWF. When Hogan started to stale and eventually left, it created a vacuum in the product. Within months after Hogan's leaving, Bret Hart found himself briefly at the top of the mountain. He would have to step aside for Hogan, Luger, Diesel, and finally Michaels. From the fall of 1992 through the fall of 1997, he was the one character and performer that tied the period together. It is fitting that the start of the Attitude Era came with Vince permanently exiling Bret from the mountaintop with the Montreal Screw Job.
Today, Bret Hart comes across as pretty bitter. In his book, he spends an inordinate number of pages talking about how much fan mail he received compared to other performers or how impressed those other performers were with him. He even was upset that he didn't get the same championship perks that guys like Hogan or Warrior got. In the wonderful documentary produced by the WWE on his feud with Michaels, it is pretty obvious that Shawn has moved on while Bret continues to fight that battle.
My thesis is that the war Hart is waging is motivated by his need to justify his time at the top and his place in history. Since he was jerked around in away that few other immortals have been, it is fair to ask the question: Was Bret Hart actually an immortal? Bret thinks so and I agree with him. Either way, it is a shame that one of the most accomplished performers of his generation can't be at piece with his career.
SUGGESTED CONSUMPTION
International Object Episode 69: This is the show that got me thinking about Bret's thoughts on himself.
Hitman: My Life in the Cartoon World of Wrestling: Bret's book. Must read. Top two wrestling book.
Bret Hart bashing Triple H: Classic Hitman. One, he refers to Triple H as "Hunter." Brings back one of my favorite memories from the Wrestling in the Shadows doc. Bret's very Candadian ex wife tore into Triple H for a good three minutes and kept calling him "Hunter" in an extremely Canadian accent. Two, this came out in the middle of me writing this essay and it is on point.
Bret Hart Tribute Video: Worth it just to listen to his kick ass entrance music.
Wrestling with the Shadows: Documentary that captures Bret's 1997 and the Montreal Screwjob. Also available on Netflix streaming.
*My first sentence on this blog is a lie. The first surprise was Ultimate Warrior coming out at the end of Wrestlemania 8 to save Hulk Hogan. That makes the narrative less interesting so I will ignore it.
**Hulk Hogan "retired" in 1992 at Wrestlemania 8.
***A combination of these three would headline Wrestlemania 8, SummerSlam 1992, and Survivor Series 1992. Within a few months of ascending to the championship, Flair and Warrior would be out of the WWF. Macho Man would be pushed down the card and to the announcing booth.
****There is nothing wrong with being the fourth biggest character in any story. There is something wrong with the fourth biggest character not having a story. This is especially true if that guy is the champ and his only function is to be a catalyst that gets other stories going.
Background and History
Bret Hart winning the WWF title in 1992 was the first surprise that I experienced as a fan of pro wrestling.* Bret won the title in the fall that year by defeating Ric Flair. Flair had only been in my life for about a year as an active wrestler. I knew that he was a legend in WCW/NWA due to magazines like Pro Wrestling Illustrated, but I never saw a single match of his until he came to the WWF. I did know that he was a legend and that legends don't usually lose to guys like Bret Hart.
Bret Hart was different from previous World Champs. Guys like Hogan and Warrior were super human. They were also crazy and prone to say non-sense. Bret came across as a smart guy. I identified with him because of it. His cleverness set him apart. I first got hooked on the pink and black during Hart's match with Mr. Perfect at SummerSlam 1991. Hart won the Intercontinental Championship with a surprising counter that lead into the Sharpshooter, his finisher. It was out of nowhere and a stark contrast to Hulk Hogan's slow and predictable workup to the atomic leg drop.
There have been several suggestions on why Vince McMahon decided to go with Bret.** Some have suggested that it was because of McMahon's steroid trial a desire to showcase a less-muscled champion. There is also the possibility that Macho Man, Flair, and the Ultimate Warrior were not connecting enough with the fans to keep in the spotlight.*** Irregardless, he got the job as the guy and he would be tie together the next five years for the company.
Bret Hart: Main Event Hero
After a year of being the work horse, Bret got the ball in 1992. Hart would main event Survivor Series 1992 as champion. Vince McMahon would spend the next 5 years trying to undo it. Vince would look away from Bret and towards a varied array of stars to be the focus of the WWF. Despite trying everything under the sun, he eventually would also come back around to the Hitman. The era crests with WrestleMania 10 and ends when with a final Bret/Shawn encounter in which Vince completely and totally ends the Hitman era.
Hart was undermined in a way that other centerpieces have never been since mid-1980s. Fittingly, it would be Hogan who would first steal the spotlight by defeating Yokozuna moments after he had defeated the Hitman. By the summer, Hogan would be gone and replaced with Lex Luger. Luger was a muscled up, recently turned good guy who looked more like the Ultimate Warrior and Hogan. Luger even copied Hogan's love of America and super posedown at the end of PPVs.
Luger would remain at the top of the card through Wrestlemania X. There is more to the art of wrestling than when matches occur on the card and Hart made the most of his feud with Jerry Lawler. Luger would fail to connect with the fans and Hart would reclaim the conch with a title victory over Yokozuna in 1994. This point represented the artistic highpoint of Hart's reign. He had fantastic matches with Owen Hart, Bob Backlund, and Diesel after he lost the title in early 1995.
The Hitman did not have a good 1995 into 1996. After finishing his feud with Backlund in a disappointing "I quit" match, Hart listed along competing against Hakushi, Isaac Yankem, DDS, and one of the Quebecers. Hart would win his third title at Survivor Series in a fantastic match, but then would knock around match-to-match biding time before he would drop the title to Shawn Michaels.
It is during this period that it became obvious that Vince McMahon was uncomfortable with Hart at the top of the card or as the focus of the show. Even as champion, the Hitman was really the fouth biggest thing on the program.**** Michaels' boyhood dream dominated pre-Rumble through Wrestlemania 12. Bret's PPV matches with Diesel and Undertaker existed to get that feud going. As the Diesel/Kevin Nash experience faltered, Hart would be used to showcase Shawn Michaels.
End of Days and Perspective
Hart would return to the ring at Survivor Series 1996 and ultimately find his voice as a heel. Through SummerSlam 97, he would have iconic matches against Stone Cold and Undertaker. Hart was able to pivot his character without changing the core of who that character was. Instead of being the tenacious competitor who outsmarted his opponents, he became the bitter veteran who couldn't understand that the game had changed around him.
In my reading and listening, people do not tend to look back too fondly on the early-to-mid 1990s in the WWF. When Hogan started to stale and eventually left, it created a vacuum in the product. Within months after Hogan's leaving, Bret Hart found himself briefly at the top of the mountain. He would have to step aside for Hogan, Luger, Diesel, and finally Michaels. From the fall of 1992 through the fall of 1997, he was the one character and performer that tied the period together. It is fitting that the start of the Attitude Era came with Vince permanently exiling Bret from the mountaintop with the Montreal Screw Job.
Today, Bret Hart comes across as pretty bitter. In his book, he spends an inordinate number of pages talking about how much fan mail he received compared to other performers or how impressed those other performers were with him. He even was upset that he didn't get the same championship perks that guys like Hogan or Warrior got. In the wonderful documentary produced by the WWE on his feud with Michaels, it is pretty obvious that Shawn has moved on while Bret continues to fight that battle.
My thesis is that the war Hart is waging is motivated by his need to justify his time at the top and his place in history. Since he was jerked around in away that few other immortals have been, it is fair to ask the question: Was Bret Hart actually an immortal? Bret thinks so and I agree with him. Either way, it is a shame that one of the most accomplished performers of his generation can't be at piece with his career.
SUGGESTED CONSUMPTION
International Object Episode 69: This is the show that got me thinking about Bret's thoughts on himself.
Hitman: My Life in the Cartoon World of Wrestling: Bret's book. Must read. Top two wrestling book.
Bret Hart bashing Triple H: Classic Hitman. One, he refers to Triple H as "Hunter." Brings back one of my favorite memories from the Wrestling in the Shadows doc. Bret's very Candadian ex wife tore into Triple H for a good three minutes and kept calling him "Hunter" in an extremely Canadian accent. Two, this came out in the middle of me writing this essay and it is on point.
Bret Hart Tribute Video: Worth it just to listen to his kick ass entrance music.
Wrestling with the Shadows: Documentary that captures Bret's 1997 and the Montreal Screwjob. Also available on Netflix streaming.
*My first sentence on this blog is a lie. The first surprise was Ultimate Warrior coming out at the end of Wrestlemania 8 to save Hulk Hogan. That makes the narrative less interesting so I will ignore it.
**Hulk Hogan "retired" in 1992 at Wrestlemania 8.
***A combination of these three would headline Wrestlemania 8, SummerSlam 1992, and Survivor Series 1992. Within a few months of ascending to the championship, Flair and Warrior would be out of the WWF. Macho Man would be pushed down the card and to the announcing booth.
****There is nothing wrong with being the fourth biggest character in any story. There is something wrong with the fourth biggest character not having a story. This is especially true if that guy is the champ and his only function is to be a catalyst that gets other stories going.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Hello.
It is what it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)