What If? - The Screwjob Never Happened

[DualShock]

-Bret has a reputation to retain. If it was a work he would have basically been lying to the fans all this time. The only way I see Bret revealing it was a work (if it was a work) would be on his death bed/in his will

This is an interesting point because Bret was twice in his life at the point to retain his reputation. In 1997 he received "you sold out" chants from Canadian fans at WWE shows so he had to make something to overshadow the fact that he left for the big money and make the fans feel sorry for him and after he did it he had to retain his reputation one more time by not revealing it was a work to not look like a liar.
Although I don't know if most fans would even care anymore in 2019 if someone is gonna expose the events surrounding the Montreal, nobody is gonna gain anything from it, like when Dave Hester who left the TV show Storage Wars and exposed it as fake, it was too late and it didn't harm the show, Hester gained nothing with that move and made him only look like a jackass.
Even when Bret returned and feuded with Vince, most fans didn't care so much that the Screwjob story is gonna come to an end, they were just happy to see Bret again in WWE and that was almost 10 years ago.

You're willfully dismissing two verifiable sources of information and refuse to admit they're telling the truth. Bret has been out of the business for eighteen years and each and every time he has remained steadfast in his position that it was a shoot, not a work. He would have no reason, at this stage in his life, to continue to keep this charade up.

Jim Cornette has also said repeatedly he believes the Screwjob was legit in interviews. He longer works in WWE and has been out of the business for well over a decade. Cornette often times goes into specific detail about the behind-the-scenes politicking (i.e. Shawn Michaels behavior) which went on when he used to work in the WWE in the mid 90's. He talks about various performers attitudes, whether they were a prick or not. That does not constitute respect for kayfabe.

The problem is that you and many fans who believe and claim Screwjob was real doesn't think that if for some reason the Screwjob was a work there would be no reason to explain anything. If it was a storyline then nobody got screwed for real, nobody was killed or injured so Bret, HBK, Hebner, Vince would have no reason to explain anything because nothing bad happened to anybody, actually the opposite.
Listening to some comments (not yours, I mean in general, all these years) you would think Bret had a contract with WWE until 2002, got screwed in 1997 and then in protest he left the company CM Punk style, then Bischoff heard Bret was without a job and hired him when in reality nothing bad happened and it was a win situation for everybody and it was known where Bret would end up at the end of the year.

 

[Geese]

The problem is that you and many fans who believe and claim Screwjob was real doesn't think that if for some reason the Screwjob was a work there would be no reason to explain anything. If it was a storyline then nobody got screwed for real, nobody was killed or injured so Bret, HBK, Hebner, Vince would have no reason to explain anything because nothing bad happened to anybody, actually the opposite.
Listening to some comments (not yours, I mean in general, all these years) you would think Bret had a contract with WWE until 2002, got screwed in 1997 and then in protest he left the company CM Punk style, then Bischoff heard Bret was without a job and hired him when in reality nothing bad happened and it was a win situation for everybody and it was known where Bret would end up at the end of the year.

It is stupid comments like these is the reason I do not refute your argument word-for-word because you're speaking incoherent gibberish at this point.

 

[bullyballmm]

He would have no reason, at this stage in his life, to continue to keep this charade up.

He would have nothing to gain from revealing it was a work, if it was a work, either. Not an argument. Give a reason to why he would reveal it was a work if it was a work. I have given reasons as to why he wouldn't reveal the work if it as a work.

He longer works in WWE and has been out of the business for well over a decade. Cornette often times goes into specific details about the behind-the-scenes politicking (i.e. Shawn Michaels behavior) which went on when he used to work in the WWE. He talks about various performers attitudes, whether they were a prick or not. That does not constitute respect for kayfabe.

Shawn Michaels is the first to admit he was a prick in the past, so others also talking about Shawn isn't an example of a "respect for kayfabe" or Cornette not caring about talking about WWE backstage politics for reprisal.

And there is fear of reprisal. You keep bringing up that neither men work in WWE anymore as if the fact that they can't be punished by Vince is a reason that (even if they did know it was a work, if it was a work), they wouldn't have a reason to keep the secret. And that's just not true - Vince/WWE has power over things in the wrestling industry. And the people who participated in the work may have had to sign a strict non-disclosure contract about the work.

The problem is, we just don't know. I am agnostic when it comes to shoot vs. work, I don't think either side is 100% convincing. I have no dog in this race, and if it is a work then I will laugh but I wouldn't be like "SEE I WAS RIGHT" because I am not actually arguing that I believe it IS a work. I am just playing Devil's Advocate and I think it COULD be a work.

You seem to be triggered by people saying there is even a slight possibility that the MS may be a work. Are you sure you're not in on it and don't want the truth to get out? ?

 

[DualShock]

It is stupid comments like these is the reason I do not refute your argument word-for-word because you're speaking incoherent gibberish at this point.

Well, then I try to post less incoherent gibberish posts

You say the Screwjob happening between the first Stunner for Vince and the official start of the Austin vs McMahon feud is a coincidence. Alright, it can be a coincidence.

Was it also coincidence that Survivor Series 1997 was the first PPV with no Vince McMahon on commentary for years?
Was it also coincidence that McMahon got involved in the match yelling at both guys "to stop" because he wanted like he said earlier "to make things right" despite both men in the match doing a normal pro wrestling match with scripted moves and no out of control shoot fight?
Was it also a coincidence that the wrestler who got screwed in the match was the only wrestler that year who had numerous segments where he complained how he got screwed in every important match by Vince and the WWE?
Too many coincidences at once.

 

[Geese]

Give a reason to why he would reveal it was a work if it was a work. I have given reasons as to why he wouldn't reveal the work if it as a work.Shawn Michaels is the first to admit he was a prick in the past, so others also talking about Shawn isn't an example of a "respect for kayfabe" or Cornette not caring about talking about WWE backstage politics for reprisal. And there is fear of reprisal. You keep bringing up that neither men work in WWE anymore as if the fact that they can't be punished by Vince is a reason that (even if they did know it was a work, if it was a work), they wouldn't have a reason to keep the secret. And that's just not true - Vince/WWE has power over things in the wrestling industry. And the people who participated in the work may have had to sign a strict non-disclosure contract about the work. The problem is, we just don't know.

You said "may have" signed. Since the onus of evidence is on you who say Montreal was a work you must present documentation with website links that Bret Hart and Jim Cornette signed these Non-disclosure agreements. Otherwise, your argument is very much a false one and we must take Bret and Jim's word it was legit.

Also, many states have special exemption to non-disclosure agreements and even IF Cornette and Hart signed such an agreement, it would be impossible for Vince to sue them in court.

You can get the truth out, again, if you have documentation to prove it was a work. The evidence is just flimsy. You claim "we just don't know." That is also false. We know from all the parties involved who have been interviewed for the past twenty years the Screwjob was real. Again, you are engaging in conspiratorial thinking: "What if there is some obscure evidence buried in Titan Towers which shows the Screwjob was a work? What is Vince McMahon hiding from us?"

 

[bullyballmm]

It just feels like you are taking your rightful upsetness at people who claim the moon landing is fake or that 9/11 was done by the government or that Sandy Hook was a hoax and applying that to the this fun debate about whether something was a shoot or a work.

You keep saying "provide the evidence" ignoring that IF it was a work it would have been kept hush hush and people like Bret would lie to keep up the work and people like Jim would speculate because all they can do is give their opinion on stuff that happens in the biz to make money from smarks who need to know everything.

I don't get why you are getting so worked up over this. But keep posting shit on profile just because I decided to participate in this thread, you don't phase me.

 

[Jay-Ashley]

I really think this thread should be closed it is obviously getting too heated and away from the main point of it, to some extent.

 

[Jacob Fox]

We can disagree on opinion. That's human nature. If you promise to talk about it rationally, I will re open the thread. But I won't put up with insults and petty arguing. We can come to a conclusion without that.

The fact is that everyone involved here is an intelligent person. Place that intelligence above all else and then you'll understand why this forum is the best.

I am not taking sides, because I think we all know what my opinion is. But we can have a free exchange of ideas without fighting.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Opening back up. Please keep it civil.

 

[DualShock]

Thanks for that. The question was how would that affect the WWE, would Foley, HHH and Rock be megastars they turned out to be, how would the company look like.
The McMahon character and the Austin vs. McMahon feud was planned anyway just like Bret Hart leaving the company, 1998 would still be more crash TV style compared to 1997 because McMahon realized putting Russo in charge with his crash TV ideas might get the viewers back.
That means the only thing that wasn't planned was Shawn Michaels' role in 1998 because of the bad injury he sustained in the casket match against the Undertaker that means that the Shawn Michaels injury affected 1998 more than the Screwjob. That gives you many questions like how would DX look like with HBK still part of it, would they kick HHH or HBK out? Would we have a brutal HHH vs HBK feud before 2002? How would that affect the pushes of Foley and The Rock especially when Rock and HBK never wanted to work with each other? How long would last the Austin vs HBK feud and would HBK win the belt back that year? How would HBKs role in the main event look during the Austin vs McMahon feud? Maybe HBK would be choosen as Corporate Champion months before the Rock was to help McMahon?

Like I said, the injury of HBK changed the plans and affected the year more than the Screwjob, the Screwjob actually didn't affect 1998 at all, that was just the way to say to their loyal worker good bye and thank him, making him not really lose his title or look greedy for leaving for WCW

 

[Geese]

The question was how would that affect the WWE, would Foley, HHH and Rock be megastars they turned out to be, how would the company look like. That means the only thing that wasn't planned was Shawn Michaels' role in 1998 because of the bad injury he sustained in the casket match against the Undertaker that means that the Shawn Michaels injury affected 1998 more than the Screwjob. That gives you many questions like how would DX look like with HBK still part of it, would they kick HHH or HBK out? How would that affect the pushes of Foley and The Rock especially when Rock and HBK never wanted to work with each other? How long would last the Austin vs HBK feud and would HBK win the belt back that year? How would HBKs role in the main event look during the Austin vs McMahon feud? Maybe HBK would be choosen as Corporate Champion months before the Rock was to help McMahon? Like I said, the injury of HBK changed the plans and affected the year more than the Screwjob, the Screwjob actually didn't affect 1998 at all, that was just the way to say to their loyal worker good bye and thank him, making him not really lose his title or look greedy for leaving for WCW

Mick Foley (as Mankind) was already a star and got a push when he defeated Undertaker at Summer Slam '96. Paul Bearer double-crossed Undertaker and aligned himself with Foley. After WWE shed the babyfaced Rocky Maivia persona in 1997, which wasn't popular with the fans. He was re-christened The Rock, joined the Nation of Domination and got himself over. I don't see HBK being a main event player in 1998 and winning the title back. Normally, Wrestlemania signifies the dawn of a new Champion, the face for the company. Austin was the huge star who drew the crowds. I don't see HBK getting any major push when Rock, Austin, and Foley were far more popular than him. I see Shawn being moved further down the card had he stayed with the company in 1998.

 

[DualShock]

A week after WrestleMania XIV WWE had an UK only PPV called Mayhem in Manchester. WWE released earlier a poster that had Austin, Taker, Triple H and Shawn Michaels on it but they changed it later and replaced HBK with Ken Shamrock. That night Stone Cold was defending the title successfully against Triple H so the original plan was maybe Austin defending his title against HBK. Another possibility was maybe a tag team match Austin & Taker vs. DX therefore the 4 guys on the poster or maybe it was the plan Stone Cold vs. Triple H all along with HBK as his manager. I don't know if the original poster was released before or after the Royal Rumble 1998 when HBK sustained that injury because he was advertised for the event.
Even with Austin vs. HBK taking place, I doubt Austin would lose the title after only 6-7 days at an UK event so it was maybe HBKs last chance or maybe he would get his rematch at the April PPV Unforgiven.
I doubt a fucked up drugged HBK with that attitude would agree to be outside the world title picture longer than 3 months.

 

[Geese]

I doubt a fucked up drugged HBK with that attitude would agree to be outside the world title picture longer than 3 months.

Shawn wouldn't have any choice. HBK didn't have the clout like he once had. Stone Cold was the Main event draw during the Attitude Era. The only career option HBK had in 1998 would be to be pushed further down the card to make room for the bigger stars like The Rock, Mick Foley, and Hunter.

A week after WrestleMania XIV WWE had an UK PPV called Mayhem in Manchester. WWE released earlier a poster that had Austin, Taker, Triple H and Shawn Michaels on it but they changed it later and replaced HBK with Ken Shamrock. Even with Austin vs. HBK taking place, I doubt Austin would lose the title after only 6-7 days at an UK event so it was maybe HBKs last chance or maybe he would get his rematch at the April PPV Unforgiven.

WWE tours foreign countries normally after Wrestlemania and it doesn't have any bearing on who gets pushed here in the states. Shortly after Wrestlemania X, Bret Hart successfully defended his title against Randy Savage in Japan. It didn't mean anything in the states as Savage was back to working the commentary booth with Vince McMahon. There was no mention of this match on WWE programming. I believe it was covered in Pro Wrestling Illustrated.

Had HBK had gotten any rematch in an American pay-per-view, he would lose to Austin once again and a likely career trajectory for him would be to be moved further down the card to make way for the younger guys. It happened to Ric Flair in 1992 after he lost the World title to Bret Hart in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. He was moved further down the card so the younger talent can get a push.

 

[Jacob Fox]

I'll repeat again: Every moment in wrestling is assumed a work until confirmed otherwise by verifiable sources. Prove this statement wrong, or shut up.

Sorry I missed out on some stuff that was directed toward me.

In regards to evidence, the default position is that the Screwjob was real. This is not me saying that it was, just that it is more accepted in the wrestling community being real.

Now Base no one can prove your statement wrong, but that doesn't mean your statement is right. Basic logic is that you cannot prove a negative. It's like God. Rather than finding proof that God exists, many theists say that he exists unless it is proven that he doesn't. This is silly because then we have to except that leprechauns, unicorns, Transformers and demonic pinatas exist simply because we cannot prove that they don't.

So, no one can prove your statement false. But that doesn't make it true. There are two options:

1. The screwjob was real and provide evidence for it being real.

2. The screwjob was a work and provide evidence for it being a work.

We do not rest on these following statements because are illogical:

1. If you cannot provide evidence of the screwjob being a work, then it is must be real.

2. if you cannot provide evidence of the screwjob being real, then it must be a work.

The statement that I think Base made, but I am not sure if was him or someone else. I don't really want to go back through all of these posts. But likely the only people who truly know if it was fake or real are Bret Hart and Vince McMahon. As I have mentioned, I believe it was real for the reasons that I posted previously. However, I do accept the fact that those observations are not conclusive. However, I think a preponderance of the evidence points toit being real. But we really may never have a conclusive answer from Hart or McMahon.

 

[Jay-Ashley]

This is just beating a dead horse at this point now...