Two questions for you and the blog:
1. Why did Bret win the title at “Final Four” in early 1997 only to lose it the next night to Sid? Seemed silly to have a decorated champion and still in his prime Bret serve as a short term transitional champ a-la Iron Sheik in 1984 or Bob Backlund in 1994. I heard that maybe SCSA was booked to win Final Four but plans had to change mid-match when he got legit injured. If that is true, what were the plans for SCSA’s first planned reign?
2. Why did Bret win the title from Undertaker at Summerslam 1997? Just a few weeks later Vince told Bret he was going to breach his contract because he couldn’t afford him any longer. Vince had to have known that before Summerslam. I can’t believe that Vince would put the title on him knowing he was going to get rid of him, no matter how hot the Hart Foundation angle was.
1. Untrue. That was just one of those rumors at the time that I was as guilty of spreading as anyone. Bret winning the belt was the plan all along.
2. That is absolutely one of the great mysteries of that time period, to me. Why DID Vince put the belt on him? I think maybe Vince just didn't foresee how insanely hot D-X would become in a short period of time, or maybe he really did have the intention of following through with the contract. Undertaker certainly wasn't any huge draw on top, but you'd think Shawn was the more logical choice to switch the belt, because they had their big main event program coming up and it would have made more sense. So yeah, I got nothing here, sorry.