Taker brings up a really good point on his recent interviews. Why the fuck didn’t they have Bret drop it to Taker in any scenario you could imagine, then have Taker drop it to Shawn.
I know it’s been said that Vince 100% wanted Bret to lose to Shawn.
But I’ve never specifically heard anyone mention Bret losing to Taker. That’s the one guy who Bret could have lost to where he would have done it, it doesn’t make anyone weaker or no reason why it doesn’t make sense.
Have some 3 way match, have Taker pin Bret then Shawn pin Taker, that way you get the belt on Shawn and Bret still gets beat clean. You could have Bret and Shawn wrestle after Taker beats Bret and have Shawn go over on Bret if Bret would have done it if it wasn’t for the strap. Probably wouldn’t.
I guess it just all comes down to Vince wanted the guy leaving the company to lose the belt in the ring to the guy he wanted to beat Bret/have Bret anoint as the new champion etc and not have Bret be able to say I never lost the belt to Shawn/he couldn’t beat me etc
Just made me think it seems like Taker could have been the missing piece. He just had the first HIAC match with Shawn the month before (that I was at and it was epic af) and the Ground Zero match and the start of the fued at SS 97....story would have fit even.Hell, Kane could have cost Taker the belt after he took it off Bret, losing the belt to Shawn just like Kane cost Taker the match at HIAC, Rumble 98, would have helped Taker/Kane fued too
You’re not wrong that it isn’t the best thing for the value of the belt, but they did it with Taker/hogan way back in the day, and I think they did it with the final four/Sid beating Bret on Raw Thursday and then Taker beating Sid at Mains 13Bret was too much of a fan of himself back in the day. As bad as Shawn's ego was, Bret's was apparently as horrible, but just more sober. I think the reason they kept Taker out of there was because dropping the belt that many times in such a short period can devalue the title and the character who holds it. Nobody would want to see Taker win the title and then lose it almost immediately to someone who had already defeated Bret. Same problem happened with Mankind vs. Austin vs. HHH at SummerSlam '99. HHH really should have gone over that night, but Mankind did, and then lost the next night leading to people going "WTF was the point?"
You're probably right that it might have added to the feud of Kane/Taker, but that feud really wouldn't have needed that addition. Seeing Kane's arrival, Vince proclaiming it's him, and then him ripping the door off the hinges to destroy Taker was enough to captivate people. People would have still watched those two fight it out with or without the title on the line.
And it did come down to Vince wanting Bret to lose at the PPV. Bret refused for strictly personal reasons and said he'd drop it the next night, but the last time that happened, Vince watched his then women's champion show up at Nitro and toss her belt into the garbage live. So, he wasn't about to let that happen again. I don't think Vince really pulled the trigger on this thing until the last possible minute, and I know HHH has said in the past that he told Vince, "If he doesn't want to do business, we'll do it for him," so that probably gave him the push needed. Both sides were pretty fucked for their part, but in the end, Bret really did screw Bret.
The interviews with his son tear me up. So hard to watch.Anyone who hasn't seen it, bye sure to watch the 2 part episode they did on Benoit. They did a great job with it. First time Nancy's sister ever talked about it publicly (and on the Jericho podcast which was amazing too) Chris's son from another marriage was on their too. Really amazing watch about such a horrible thing.