Lost My Smile

I still don't understand what HBK is talking about.

Details?

I lost my smile = I don't want to drop the belt.

"He is the same "religious" man who swore to God to Hart about not knowing anything about the screw job."

It truly amazes me how many people still don't realize the Montreal Screwjob was a work.

it was a work

It was a work.

Anyone who believes that what happened in Montreal is a work, should try explaining the testimony during the depositions in the Owen Hart wrongful death lawsuit.

Vince's attorneys MAIN POINT against most members of the Hart family, including Bret, was that the reason they filed the lawsuit was because Bret was bitter about what happened in Montreal.

Now if this was in fact a staged wrestling angle, all Bret would have had to have said was, "Montreal is a work," and WWE's main defense would have been decimated. Now keep in mind, this was a lawsuit worth TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars, to BOTH sides.

Now do you honestly think that protecting kayfabe over this so called 'elaborate work' takes priority over what was at stake during this trial? Do you think the Hart Family would put 'protecting the business' over & above gaining justice in the real life death of Owen Hart?

Do you think Vince would risk perjury by blaming certain members of the Hart families bitterness on a 'worked angle' if said angle was revealed? Do you think Bret, in the trial covering his brother's death, would put protecting an 'angle' ahead of exposing the incident, when doing so (with MILLIONS of dollars on the line) would have greatly weakened WWE's defense?

It was an unfortunate situation, during a stressful time in a strange business. A work, it was not.

HBK can't be trusted, especially if he turns his right side toward you.

This is just funny - "Last time I checked, a company would never do a work that would hurt their business. What happened in Canada had a serious chance of hurting business with outraged fans."

Yeah, WWE has always gone out of their way to not piss off fans. lol

Two words - Katie Vick.

"Vince's attorneys MAIN POINT against most members of the Hart family, including Bret, was that the reason they filed the lawsuit was because Bret was bitter about what happened in Montreal."

And bitterness had what to do with the faulty harness that killed Owen? Maybe the lawyers making this ther main point is why the Harts got 18 million in the settlement?

Hey, don't put shit like that past Bret. You forget how dedicated he is to the business. When he and Owen were feuding in the mid-90s, they didn't even speak to each other in public, as not to break kayfabe.

And the Montreal Screwjob didn't hurt WWF at all, in fact, it helped it. The Mr. McMahon character was established from it, which led to his war with SCSA, which was one of the main parts of helping the WWF defeat WCW.

LOL at all the work -callers.

"Last time I checked, a company would never do a work that would hurt their business. What happened in Canada had a serious chance of hurting business with outraged fans."

LOL, a little naive don't you think? That was the turning point for that company. Going balls out here and further on would then in turn help business. It was the best thing for everybody. WORK

"And bitterness had what to do with the faulty harness that killed Owen? Maybe the lawyers making this ther main point is why the Harts got 18 million in the settlement?"

The issue of a faulty harness had nothing to do with the Hart Family seeking millions of dollars in compensatory damages from WWE. That is a different issue which was dealt with in a separate lawsuit with the manufacturer of the harness.

The defense's argument that the plaintiffs (Hart Family) were injecting a personal grudge from different issues into the proceedings in order to get a higher payout is perfectly valid. It helps to cast doubt on their testimony, and is in fact a textbook defensive move to lessen the likely judgment to come.

What isn't valid is the idea that WWE would risk perjury & further damages during the trial by using this very argument, if in fact it was a worked wrestling angle. The risk/reward ratio is too high to make it feasible, when the other side could destroy the argument simply by speaking the truth.

What also isn't valid is the idea that the plaintiffs wouldn't take the opportunity to expose the incident as a work, when it would have easily helped their case, which presumably they were attempting to win. The risk/reward ratio here is far too attractive to pass up exposing the incident.

The very fact that during this trial the incident became an issue in a court of law, and was NOT contested by EITHER side, should have killed the idea in any reasonably thinking persons mind that this was in any way, shape or form a worked wrestling angle.

For those who want to believe that Bret & Vince have some secret devils pact to carry a worked wrestle angle to their grave, you would also have to believe that this is a pact that transcends the death of family member & multi-million dollar lawsuit. While I'd say that view is highly delusional, to each his own!

"The issue of a faulty harness had nothing to do with the Hart Family seeking millions of dollars in compensatory damages from WWE. That is a different issue which was dealt with in a separate lawsuit with the manufacturer of the harness."

The Harts received 18 million in a wrongful death settlement against the WWE. WWE filed suit against the harness manufacturer. Yes those were two different lawsuits, but they both had to do with Owen's death.


You aren't making yourself clear at all. You're almost making it sound like the Hart family sued Vince just because of the Montreal incident.

Well, whatever. Everyone has their opinion on the matter. I'm done arguing with you now.

Rule #1, protect Kayfabe! It was a work.

"The Harts received 18 million in a wrongful death settlement against the WWE. WWE filed suit against the harness manufacturer. Yes those were two different lawsuits, but they both had to do with Owen's death."

Thank you Captain Obvious.

"You aren't making yourself clear at all"

Although I never make a conscious effort to 'dumb down' the content of my posts, perhaps I've overestimated the comprehension level of some in the audience. In this instance, I'll try to slow it down.

"You're almost making it sound like the Hart family sued Vince just because of the Montreal incident."

One would get that impression only if they weren't paying attention. Although there are actually some people who make an effort not to pay attention.

I'll bust out the magic markers & walk through it one last time. For those 'not clear' 1,2 & 3 are all separate occurrences that build on each other. Numbers 4 & 5 are occurrences in the actual trial. Now grab your thinking cap:

1. Montreal incident occurs

2. Death of Owen Hart occurs

3. Wrongful death lawsuit occurs in which the Hart Family sues WWE.

4. In the course of the wrongful death lawsuit, the defense (WWE) uses the Montreal Incident as the main part of their argument that certain members of the Hart Family have ulterior motives. This is done to cast doubts over the veracity of their testimony.

Now doing so places Vince at risk of perjury should the incident be identified as a work. For those who STILL may be having a problem following, one particular member of the plaintiffs family (Bret Hart) would have direct knowledge if Vince's use of this argument was an act of perjury. Why? Well because if the Montreal incident were a work, Bret would have known before hand!

5. Throughout the entire course of the trial, the plaintiffs (Hart Family) at NO TIME 'expose' the Montreal incident as a work, even though doing so would destroy a component of the defenses argument of ulterior motives in the testimony made by the plaintiff's side.

For those STILL having a problem following, I will once again repeat. In the course of an actual trial, the Montreal incident is cited in a court of law. The defense uses the incident to support it's case. If it was a work, doing so would have placed the defense in a position of vulnerability.

In the entirety of the trial, the plaintiffs never expose the Montreal incident as a work, even though:

a. If it was a work, Bret Hart could have done so at anytime, and

b. doing so would have weakened the defenses arguments, and was thus in the plaintiffs best interest to do so.

For those STILL 'unclear', the Montreal incident was presented & accepted, by both sides, in a court of law, as an uncoordinated occurrence. If it was an actual work, the incentives on both sides would NOT have led to this outcome.

"Well, whatever. Everyone has their opinion on the matter. I'm done arguing with you now."

The above are not 'opinions', they are citations of fact. There is an obvious difference between the two. I would hope people would use facts as a guide to forming their opinions. Unfortunately, all too often, one encounters people who do not.




Excellent points, McCandayass. I did wonder for a while if Montreal was a work, but Owen's death does put it into perspective.

*McCandayAss locks in the verbal Sharpshooter on Draven*

-edited for dbl post-