What IF Undertaker keeps the WWE Champion at SummerSlam of 1997!?

[Super Saiyan Goku]

What IF Undertaker keeps the WWE Champion at SummerSlam of 1997!? Ok so we all know the main event of SummerSlam of 1997 was WWE Champion Undertaker vs. Bret "Hit Man" Hart with Shawn Michaels as the Guest Ref. for the WWE Champion and if Bret lose is he can wrestling in the USA anymore! So with that said how different would WWE would have been if Undertaker keep the title at SummerSlam we all know Kane was coming a the Bad Blood PPV and with Taker still as the Champion do that still have the Hell in the Cell match at Bad Blood against Shawn Michaels just for the WWE Champion!? And if Bret lose at SummerSlam how does he come up with a way to be still in USA event in WWE!? And how does Bret career end then with WWE then!? What do you all thing!? Though?​

 

[Lockard 23]

Shawn Michaels wins it at Bad Blood in the first ever Hell In A Cell match. Simple as that. And if Bret was gonna lose at Summerslam, they wouldn't have added in the stipulation about not being able to wrestle in America again. Or they'd just reverse it somehow in annoying fashion (like, for example, the entire Hart Foundation saying that if they won some sort of match or if they all won different singles matches that spanned across an entire Raw episode, Bret could return to wrestle in America.)

Thing is, the Undertaker/Michaels feud started BECAUSE Michaels cost Taker the match and title. So that feud would have had to begin some other way. Considering Vince was already deciding to let Bret go from his contract, it probably would have been wise to never give Bret the title in the first place. It was the centerpiece of what caused the Montreal Screw job and without it, the Montreal controversy almost certainly would have never happened.

 

[Super Saiyan Goku]

Shawn Michaels wins it at Bad Blood in the first ever Hell In A Cell match. Simple as that. And if Bret was gonna lose at Summerslam, they wouldn't have added in the stipulation about not being able to wrestle in America again. Or they'd just reverse it somehow in annoying fashion (like, for example, the entire Hart Foundation saying that if they won some sort of match or if they all won different singles matches that spanned across an entire Raw episode, Bret could return to wrestle in America.)

Thing is, the Undertaker/Michaels feud started BECAUSE Michaels cost Taker the match and title. So that feud would have had to begin some other way. Considering Vince was already deciding to let Bret go from his contract, it probably would have been wise to never give Bret the title in the first place. It was the centerpiece of what caused the Montreal Screw job and without it, the Montreal controversy almost certainly would have never happened.

What about Kane? Do u think ended of the match at Bad Blood is still the same? As it make HBK look weck but then again now that i think of it he look weck winning the title for Bret the way he did.

 

[Lockard 23]

What about Kane? Do u think ended of the match at Bad Blood is still the same? As it make HBK look weck but then again now that i think of it he look weck winning the title for Bret the way he did.

Yes. The match ending is exactly the same, no reason why it wouldn't be. If anything, it gives Kane's debut a bit of extra impact, because he costs Taker the title instead of just a shot at the title (the HIAC match was a match to see who would get to face Bret for the world title the following month at Survivor Series.)