Vote for the wrestler that you think had the better career in WWE (whether you base that on impact or match quality is your decision), from 1985 to 2005. Voting will end tomorrow morning at the latest. Please give the wrestler's name first and any explanation thereafter. Thanks.

Bret Hart

 

 

Bret had longevity on his side and had more good matches. Mick's a better promo guy and, arguably, drew more money, but he had the advantage of working with Austin and Rock when they were closer to their peak than when Bret worked with them.

Mick Foley

 

More variety in the ring. Better angles and promos. And I think fans can relate to him more.

Bret Hart

Bret Hart

 

It's possible that Foley drew more money at his peak, but Bret would have been just as effective as a foil to Austin and Rock. In fact, I give Bret credit for laying the groundwork for the Attitude era with his run against Austin in 1996-1997, even if he wasn't around to reap the benefits. Foley became a draw toward the end of his career, and just when he was hitting his stride as a draw, his body gave out on him and he had to retire. There's still so much unfulfilled potential there with Mick. Bret met his full potential.

 

As a worker, there's no comparison, and I don't think Foley would even argue himself over Bret Hart here.

Bret Hart

 

A close call, but Bret being a far better work won it for him.

Bret Hart

 

Better worker and on top for a lot longer than Foley.

Bret.

 

They were probably on the same level as solo draws but Bret carried the company, while Mick got to follow Austin and Rock. Bret was a better worker and much more important to the company during his run at the top.

Bret "Hitman" Hart

Bret Hart

 

In many ways, Hart is underrated as a draw, while Foley is overrated in the same category. As mentioned by Loss, Hart helped trigger the beginning of the Attitude era and really helped get the ball rolling on Steve Austin. Foley, while a recognizable personality in the Attitude era, served as more of a sideshow to Austin rather than a direct factor to Austin's career. If anything, Hart could control the WWF's fate and direction, or was at least in a better position to, than Foley. Foley influenced a style during that era, but that's probably the best argument for him. Any money he drew was as a result of being Paul Orndorff to Steve Austin's Hulk Hogan. Bret was more than that in his feud with Austin, and was far more than that before that time too. Hart's quality of matches is also far greater than Foley's and knew how to tell a story via a feud, while, in some ways, the jury's still out on Foley after his uneventful feud with Randy Orton. Foley had a strong WWF career, but as far as general influence and overall impact, Bret takes this one.

Bret Hart

I love Foley but this isn't even close.

 

Bret Hart

Bret Hart

Bret

Bret Hart's ring skills win the day here.

Bret Hart

 

Bret was the total package

 

(I don't know if I'm allowed to vote since I missed out earlier on, but I guess it doesn't make any difference)

Bret

Bret Hart

 

No question about it, Bret's work kills Foley's.

 

 

Mick Foley

 

More variety in the ring.

Huh? How did Foley have "variety" in the ring?