So, you think Bret being one of the best workers in the world and best in the US during what you acknowledge to be pretty shit time for the WWE actually helps? No, it hurts your argument. Guys like Eddie, Benoit, and Angle are EASILY Bret's equal, and arguably better. Shawn is his superior, much as I'm sure it would kill you to admit it.

The argument that Paul was never considered the best in the world just doesn't hold up, especially considering the immense level of talent he was working with at the time. It's not about who was ranked where at what time; it's about the actual quality of work that was done in comparison. You're blind and in denial if you think Paul didn't turn in some amazing work. I'm sure you think The Lawler feud was an in-ring masterpiece, or his work with The Mountie, or Doink. lol. Come on. Let's not act like he was out there with the best, night in and night out and holding his own.

Nope, his best work came when he had a true peer- Hennig, Owen, and Michaels, for example. Guys who could easily stake an arguable claim to the Best In The World title. Curt and Shawn were easily on par with Bret. He had a few technicians to work with, and a lot of crap. Taker was not the Taker of the last decade. Diesel? Gimme a break.

Brets best work vs Paul's best work is an interesting discussion, but your clinging to logical fallacies. Get an argument with some weight and get back to me.