|
Post by A Ghost in the Wind on Aug 26, 2008 15:23:24 GMT -5
Shawn Michaelsvs. Steve Austin
|
|
|
Post by Lantlas on Aug 26, 2008 15:47:51 GMT -5
In straight wrestling, there's no comparison. Shawn Michaels is one of the greatest, and Austin just had a gimmick that made it so it didn't matter if he was great or not. In consistency, also no comparison. Austin was great for two years, Shawn's been great for twenty. They're both egomaniacs, but Shawn's put over quite a few people on the way. I don't agree with his "won't be in this cause God will be offended" mentality, but it's not my place to say anything. All in all, a flash in the pan vs. a career great... HBK FTW.
|
|
|
Post by A Ghost in the Wind on Aug 26, 2008 17:02:22 GMT -5
I wasn’t planning on retorting some information, but I felt the need to have to correct you. First thing I’m going to say is that, you’re giving HBK too much credit and Steve Austin not enough. Steve Austin had an in-ring career of thirteen years, but is still involved with the business today on a part-time, not compete schedule. In comparison, Shawn Michaels may have started back in ’84, but his in-ring career ended temporarily from early ’98 until mid ’02. You have to take into account the four years Michaels was inactive, bringing his active in-ring career to sixteen years and counting. With that said, we come to the conclusion that Michaels only has three more years of in-ring action than Austin.
Which brings me to my next topic point: How can you say Shawn Michaels has had twenty years of great in-ring action and Austin only having two? I understand that personal perception creates opinion, and I’m sure you have seen enough HBK footage to consider him great in your eyes. But even HBK himself said that in his younger years he was sloppy, careless, and not that good. Let’s say it takes at least three years, and that’s being generous, for him to become a standout grappler…that knocks his sixteen years of great performances down three years. On the opposite side of things, although you may not agree, Austin did have a career in WCW, and did wrestle well there. Maybe he actually wasn’t as consistent as HBK and having minimum of three star nights every night, but for the majority of his career, Austin had more good matches than bad.
As for the, “Shawn’s put over quite a few people on the way,” that’s not fair to say either. Shawn had more time on the top, but played the political game much more than Steve did. You don’t hear reports of Steve not willing to work with or put people over (other than Jeff Jarrett). The reason Austin had the title as long as he did was because it was good for business. It was Vince’s call. Before he got the belt, you don’t think he was used to put people over? Hell, he jobbed to Savio Vega. Shawn on the other hand, while he was the main guy, refused to put over Vader, refused to drop the belt to Bret, would rather vacate titles before having to put someone over, and just had a piss poor attitude.
Another thing that I’ll point out is that, until Austin came, business was down. HBK’s reign didn’t bring in new viewers. If it wasn’t for Austin, there would be no WWE today. When Shawn Michaels was on top, he didn’t sell a fourth of the merchandise Austin pushed off the shelf, didn’t spike ratings, and didn’t increase buyrates.
I just thought I’d clear a few things up. I guess my entire argument will go mote, for I too vacated for HBK, but I didn’t vote for HBK just because I was a fan of his (because I’m not). I voted for HBK because he is one the greatest wrestlers the business has seen. He sells and bumps his ass off, and puts together a very good match, for a very long time. I believe that was enough to put him over Austin, but I didn’t think it was fair to not show Austin in a good light if we were going to show HBK in such. And I figured I’d correct some numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Lantlas on Aug 26, 2008 18:04:51 GMT -5
Austin was good in WCW, but did he get over? If he did, why did they release him? Did he get over as the Ringmaster? Or would he have gotten over as Ice Dagger or some of those other frivolous things they wanted to call him? No. It wasn't until Austin broke his neck against Owen Hart and started the whole McMahon-Austin angle that he drew worth dick. Yes, from that point until Summerslam '99 or so, he did draw higher than anyone ever did in a single year, yes. The sole reason they didn't go out of business? No. That can also be attributed to Mankind, the Rock, the Corporation, the Ministry, and all the other exciting stuff that went on too. Austin 3:16 was a huge success for that period of around two years, but after that period, he didn't draw shit.
After 1999, anything Austin did didn't increase buyrates or ratings. His movie tanked, but if he's such a draw, why did movies with John Cena and Kane gross far better, and kick ass in the rental market? Austin was great for that period of time, but got a serious dose of overkill really quickly. During that period, he didn't lose cleanly for over a year, and came back as a part-timer and general manager... Which usually resulted in him killing someone's heat by giving a random stunner, and no one getting a chance for retribution because he wasn't a wrestler anymore.
HBK pre-1998, yes... I agree, he was a total politician and, pretty much, a prick. Put on some of the greatest matches ever, but a prick. 2002 until the present, still is putting on some of the greatest matches in history, has given back by putting people from Chris Jericho to Randy Orton over huge... not to mention his matches with Kurt Angle, which were some of my favorites ever. He also participated in one of the greatest Wrestlemania matches ever against Chris Jericho at Wrestlemania 19. Maybe it didn't increase the ratings or buyrates, but Eddie Guerrero certainly hasn't done that more than Triple H, and for some reason he went over in the previous round. It seems a certain set of standards are being applied certain places and not elsewhere.
Austin 3:16 was an insane gimmick, like the NWO, that drew while it had power, but went on way too long and created an ego. The reason, stated on record, that Hogan vs. Austin never happened is because they both wanted too much money and both refused to put each other over. HBK, at least since 2002, has given back a helluva lot more than Austin ever did post 3:16, and I think the quality of his matches were greatly exaggerated due to the aura and Attitude surrounding the time. Outside of his Wrestlemania matches with the Rock, I didn't quite get into very many of his matches from a wrestling standpoint.
So if we're comparing Austin from late '97 to Summerslam '99, and putting it against HBK 2002-present, I still go HBK.
|
|
|
Post by A Ghost in the Wind on Aug 26, 2008 19:10:14 GMT -5
Austin was good in WCW, but did he get over? If he did, why did they release him? Well, actually, Austin was over almost from day one in WCW, and shortly won the Television Championship a few weeks after his debut. He also had an good feud, and insanely good match, with Ricky Steamboat. Then, when they no longer wanted to put him into single matches or elevate him, he and Brian were both over with the fans as the Hollywood Blonds. I think of Austin's run in WCW similar to that of Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, and Chris Benoit...a guy that was over that wasn't being used properly. Why did they release him? Your guess is as good as mine. Hindsight is almost always 20/20. It wasn't until Austin broke his neck against Owen Hart and started the whole McMahon-Austin angle that he drew worth dick. So, that's discrediting his insanely over feud with Bret Hart, his KOTR victory and the start of his whole Austin 3:16 shtick, his '97 Royal Rumble victory, the continuation of his feud with Bret and the entire Hart Foundation (watch Canadian Stampede and you'll see that Austin is probably the most over person not a part of the Hart Foundation), and the angle he had with Michaels and then Dude Love. All of that happened before his feud with Owen Hart, and during that time, Austin was the most over person with the crowd. After 1999, anything Austin did didn't increase buyrates or ratings. The Monday Night Wars were starting to drizzle by this time, and overall general audience was down. But let's see: In 1999, the buyrate to the Royal Rumble was the third highest it's ever been, including today's numbers. In 1999, the buyrate of WrestleMania was the best it had been since 1992. In 1999, the buyrate to King of the Ring was the highest it had been, and is second all-time to the 2000 KOTR buyrate. In 1999, the SummerSlam buyrate did decrease by .01, but, overall, it's the 7th highest bought SummerSlam event in WWE history. In 1999, the Unforgiven buyrate tied the previous year's, and is tied for second of all time. In 1999, both the Fully Loaded and Over the Edge buyrates were the highest of all time. In 1999, both the No Mercy and Armageddon PPVs debuted, and their buyrates were the second highest of all time for their respective PPVs. And also in 1999, the St. Valentine's Day Massacre PPV debuted, and had one of the biggest buyrates that year. His movie tanked, but if he's such a draw, why did movies with John Cena and Kane gross far better, and kick ass in the rental market? Just because you're a profitable wrestling draw, doesn't mean your movies would do great. Just ask Hulk Hogan. Austin was great for that period of time, but got a serious dose of overkill really quickly. During that period, he didn't lose cleanly for over a year, and came back as a part-timer and general manager... Which usually resulted in him killing someone's heat by giving a random stunner, and no one getting a chance for retribution because he wasn't a wrestler anymore. HBK pre-1998, yes... I agree, he was a total politician and, pretty much, a prick. Put on some of the greatest matches ever, but a prick. 2002 until the present, still is putting on some of the greatest matches in history, has given back by putting people from Chris Jericho to Randy Orton over huge... not to mention his matches with Kurt Angle, which were some of my favorites ever. He also participated in one of the greatest Wrestlemania matches ever against Chris Jericho at Wrestlemania 19. I'll agree with all of that. Austin 3:16 was an insane gimmick, like the NWO, that drew while it had power, but went on way too long... You do know Austin eventually went and freshened up his character, right? Maybe it did take a little too long to do so, but it eventually happened. Also, if Austin was to come back to wrestling today, he would still be the biggest drawing, most over person on the company. As said, I voted for HBK too. But I could see why a person would vote for Austin, and wouldn't be surprised if he won the entire tournament.
|
|
|
Post by Lantlas on Aug 26, 2008 19:44:49 GMT -5
Austin was good in WCW, but did he get over? If he did, why did they release him? Well, actually, Austin was over almost from day one in WCW, and shortly won the Television Championship a few weeks after his debut. He also had an good feud, and insanely good match, with Ricky Steamboat. Then, when they no longer wanted to put him into single matches or elevate him, he and Brian were both over with the fans as the Hollywood Blonds. I think of Austin's run in WCW similar to that of Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, and Chris Benoit...a guy that was over that wasn't being used properly. Why did they release him? Your guess is as good as mine. Hindsight is almost always 20/20. So, that's discrediting his insanely over feud with Bret Hart, his KOTR victory and the start of his whole Austin 3:16 shtick, his '97 Royal Rumble victory, the continuation of his feud with Bret and the entire Hart Foundation (watch Canadian Stampede and you'll see that Austin is probably the most over person not a part of the Hart Foundation), and the angle he had with Michaels and then Dude Love. All of that happened before his feud with Owen Hart, and during that time, Austin was the most over person with the crowd. The Monday Night Wars were starting to drizzle by this time, and overall general audience was down. But let's see: In 1999, the buyrate to the Royal Rumble was the third highest it's ever been, including today's numbers. In 1999, the buyrate of WrestleMania was the best it had been since 1992. In 1999, the buyrate to King of the Ring was the highest it had been, and is second all-time to the 2000 KOTR buyrate. In 1999, the SummerSlam buyrate did decrease by .01, but, overall, it's the 7th highest bought SummerSlam event in WWE history. In 1999, the Unforgiven buyrate tied the previous year's, and is tied for second of all time. In 1999, both the Fully Loaded and Over the Edge buyrates were the highest of all time. In 1999, both the No Mercy and Armageddon PPVs debuted, and their buyrates were the second highest of all time for their respective PPVs. And also in 1999, the St. Valentine's Day Massacre PPV debuted, and had one of the biggest buyrates that year. Just because you're a profitable wrestling draw, doesn't mean your movies would do great. Just ask Hulk Hogan. I'll agree with all of that. Austin 3:16 was an insane gimmick, like the NWO, that drew while it had power, but went on way too long... You do know Austin eventually went and freshened up his character, right? Maybe it did take a little too long to do so, but it eventually happened. Also, if Austin was to come back to wrestling today, he would still be the biggest drawing, most over person on the company. As said, I voted for HBK too. But I could see why a person would vote for Austin, and wouldn't be surprised if he won the entire tournament. I'll agree to disagree on the WCW front, as I found Brian Pillman the more entertaining part of the Hollywood Blondes. I've made my feelings clear on the Hart/Austin feud, and Hart in general... Not to mention, I thought the KOTR thing was treacherous, save for the promo that started it all. Most of the 1999 PPVs you listed... I said AFTER 1999. Because at Summerslam 1999, he was injured, which is why Mankind won the title, and eventually he went out with the "I did it for the Rock" angle. Armageddon didn't have Austin on it, and most of the other ones you mentioned were before Summerslam '99, my point of the end of the true Austin era. You and I obviously see differently on this, and that's fine. It's good to have a good argument, well done.
|
|
|
Post by A Ghost in the Wind on Aug 26, 2008 19:52:59 GMT -5
On a sidenote, I hate Austin.
|
|
|
Post by Heavy Metal on Aug 26, 2008 23:59:21 GMT -5
I'll avoid the bile-soaked rant this time around and just vote for HBK.
|
|