Okay everyone, I've been really busy as of late so that's why this write up isn't coming until some 24 hours after I've posted the thread, but here it is anyway:
As I made mention of in my first post, going into this match-up I figured I had an easy decision to make with this one. After all, I really thought going into this tournament that I had made up my mind on which rivalry I personally thought was the greatest of all time, and Shawn Michaels vs Bret Hart was just that: an early favorite. However, after re-watching the Alliance vs. the WWF's matches/promos, it's become considerably harder for me to justify a landslide decision. Now before everyone comes crashing down on me at once about "It should have been so much better. It should have had this guy/that guy. This should have happened, etc, etc, ad nauseum," (and yes I have read all of your posts and they are all well thought out as always) I would like to play a devil's advocate if I could for a moment. I get that maybe for business that adding a Hogan/Nash/Goldberg/Sting to the feud wouldn't have been a bad idea, but would it have really made the wrestling side of it any better? Absolutely not imo. I'm perfectly happy with Booker T and DDP over Goldberg/Hogan to wrestle my matches. I also thought the promos were superb, and adding a Stephanie McMahon to the mix in anything at that time was fine by me. Also, someone mentioned the fact that DDP had a hot wife, so it doesn't make any sense for him to go after a dog like Sara, but when has wrestling ever made much sense to you? We also had gems in that era like HHH running over SCSA, and then have the two pair up with one another just a few months later. Not to mention that DDP was playing a character at the time, and how many sick sadistic perverts do you know that are that picky?
Taking it for what it was (not what it "could have been" mind you, just for what it was) was it not extremely entertaining? Did it not result in quiet a few great individual feuds and matches? Were the promos really that off? Were the 5-on-5 matches not filled with suspense and full of surprises? The answer to all of those questions is a resounding no imo. It was a great, albeit shorter than necessary rivalry that gave us some great stories and matches, and I personally feel that the entire ordeal was very entertaining.
Anyway, here is a video package from the Invasion ppv match that team WWF and the Alliance had. To this day it's still very epic and it hits just as hard as it did back then imho:
Lucky me, I found this SUPERB promo off of youtube that basically sums up the entire Hart vs Michaels rivalry. It was extremely well done and it really captured the real life heat these two guys had for one another. Needless to say, I don't think these guys really had to do much acting in this one:
Wrestling edge: HBK vs Bret Hart. The guys in the Invasion angle from both sides were no doubt good (and obviously Angle and Jericho are great), but they're going up against to legends here. No contest really.
Promo edge: Tied. Both promos get a perfect ten out of ten from me, so I really can't go either way with this one. If you really twisted my arm though, I would probably go with Hart and Michaels though, namely due to the fact that it seemed so real (and actually was in many cases).
Longevity: HBK vs. Bret Hart. Neither feud really lasted too long here, as Hart left for WCW after the infamous "Montreal Screwjob," and the invasion died off almost immediately after Survivor Series.
"Holy Shit" moments: WWF vs. Alliance. A whole bunch of heel/face turns and shocking moments really take the cake for this one.
Impact: HBK vs. Bret Hart. This one is a tad closer than one might think, because I think the WWE was headed towards the Attitude Era long before the Montreal Screwjob, but their feud defiantly brought about the A.E. faster than one could have expected.
Overall: HBK vs. Bret Hart. Like I said, this one was a lot closer than I originally expected it to be, but at the end of the day, Bret Hart vs. HBK was and is legendary.