hurrimark
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 16, 2008 7:25:24 GMT -5
Posts: 1,588
|
Post by hurrimark on Dec 11, 2008 9:48:04 GMT -5
Because I watch wrestling for many reasons not just for a good match (which hbk or macho man or rvd can put on) but I watch it for the vibe, the talent, what's happening, announcers, etc. I don't want rikishi in a thong, or may young showing her tits, or any toliet bs in the attitude era. I don't want a bad vibe. I want good wrestling. Entertaining. Everything besides what I'm into tourments me, and If anyone loves the attitude era they're opinion doesn't matter to me, because even though some of the wrestlers could of been in ECW that doesn't matter, they weren't and the attitude era is horrible for all the reasons I watch wrestling except for a talented match, which didn't really come untill Chris Benoit, Kurt Angle, etc arrived in the attitude era anyway and it was only a year away from Vince buying out ECW and WCW by then. But just one talented wrestling match if everything else in the show torments me beyond relief is not going to make me watch it, plus if a bad vibe is on that match as the attitude and all wrestling except for what I watch, has I am not going to watch it. Why do you think so many wrestling fans complain? Says something about the product doesn't it. If it was really good 99.99999% of fans wouldn't complain. But yes, I'm entitled to my opinion so respect it. All I watch is the glory days of the WWF and ECW and like I said with except of current HBK, Edge, etc matches that are talented, good promos of like ric flair's or hbk's or ecw's or whoever's career which is usually shown on the DVDs or before a big match, or the DVDs, I don't like the new wwe either. I do admit HBK has put on some good matches, but the vibe is bad. For me? opinion. all well, i'm sticking to it. If HBK would of put on some of these matches in ECW way back when (which has a good vibe. for me, fine) then I'd be going nuts and he would be my favorite in ECW as HBK is top talent since returning. But I stick to what I like and therefore am one out of the thousands that doesn't actually complain about wrestling. Because I stick to what's good. but just my opinion. And if Sandman can't put on a good match, niether can Andre the Giant and even Austin. But it's more about talented wrestling matches as I just made my point. And Sandman has a lot to be desired plus he's in ECW and not the attitude era. Sabu is good for more reasons then good matches and being a stunt man does not compare him to mick foley which was ok when he was in ECW but was just a better version of ballz mahoney with better promos and slightly better in the ring, nothing special compared to the really top guys in ECW. Perry Saturn is better in my opinion and Pittbull #2 which is a nobody if he would of been in ECW longer and would of fought better guys might be equal with Foley. But foley is better than most of ECW's guys that are undercard, but he's nothing special if he were to stay with ECW longer. ECW and glory days wwf is all I watch with exception of what I mentioned. Got a problem with it? Welll, then I got a problem with what you watch. It's all opinion. Raven and Joey Styles is all time favorites in ECW but RVD and Francine are close runners up. And I watch way more WWF then ECW anyways. You can't expect others to respect your opinion, when you can't even respect theirs.
|
|
|
Post by moogie101 on Dec 11, 2008 10:20:55 GMT -5
But Austin himself created the "Stone Cold" image, his wife came up with the name & Austin cut the KOTR interview himself. Yeah he was in the right place but without his strong brawling in many strong matches & his intensity & charisma would have stalled straight away.
|
|
|
Post by Nick the Quick on Dec 11, 2008 10:31:20 GMT -5
Austin is the greatest of all time. There will never be anyone else like him.
|
|
hurrimark
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 16, 2008 7:25:24 GMT -5
Posts: 1,588
|
Post by hurrimark on Dec 11, 2008 10:49:14 GMT -5
Austin is the greatest of all time. There will never be anyone else like him. Agreed. I have a hard time choosing who I would consider the greatest of all time and I narrow it down to three, Austin Rock Mankind I think Austin just gets my vote, ever so slightly ahead of mankind. The margin is miniscule
|
|
|
Post by man on Dec 11, 2008 13:11:07 GMT -5
It's silly to choose between Austin and Rock for the "best of all time". You are talking about short-term superstars. Rock barely got 4 years as a top-draw. Austin about 5.
These guys are nowhere near Hogan, Flair, or Undertaker. Guys like Austin and Rock are similar to Ultimate Warrior or Goldberg. Short-term, big-impact stars. But that's about it.
"Your favorite" does NOT mean "best ever".
|
|
|
Post by HugoOne on Dec 11, 2008 13:13:12 GMT -5
It's silly to choose between Austin and Rock for the "best of all time". You are talking about short-term superstars. Rock barely got 4 years as a top-draw. Austin about 5. These guys are nowhere near Hogan, Flair, or Undertaker. Guys like Austin and Rock are similar to Ultimate Warrior or Goldberg. Short-term, big-impact stars. But that's about it. "Your favorite" does NOT mean "best ever". Someone like Austin, though, has been wrestling (and been a great wrestler) for years before he won the WWF Championship. And the Rock made such a huge impact that it's hard to argue his importance with the company. While I don't put them as the greatest of all time (my money is on Flair or Michaels), I could see why people would list Austin or the Rock. It's about the quality, not the quantity. You can't compare them to guys like Goldberg and Warrior, because Goldberg and Warrior weren't anywhere near half the wrestlers that guys like Austin or Rock are, either. I can see your point, but I just don't agree with it at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by man on Dec 11, 2008 14:12:16 GMT -5
How is Austin a good wrestler?
|
|
Mirror Images
Main Eventer
fan since '92
Joined on: Jun 7, 2005 4:07:40 GMT -5
Posts: 2,809
|
Post by Mirror Images on Dec 11, 2008 14:15:29 GMT -5
If you look at everything hes done since 2002 then hes overated. but if your looking at 1997-2002 then I dont think its possible to call him overated because he was the most popular at the most popular time in wrestling history. The Rock wouldnt have been as big a star as he was if it wasnt for Austin making wrestling huge and popular thus giving more viewers.
Austin was a brilliant wrestler before his kneck injury in 1997 after that he became a brawler because he couldnt do all his other moves anymore because of reduced mobility.
|
|
|
Post by Chemical on Dec 11, 2008 14:18:15 GMT -5
I haven't read this thread. I just want to briefly say. No, not overrated in anyway, hes an awesome wrestler, and even awesomer on the mic and in promos, hes one of the best.
|
|
|
Post by layton on Dec 11, 2008 15:19:45 GMT -5
In my opinion, and this is MY opinion, I think Steve Austin is one of the most overrated wrestlers of all time, besides the Ultimate Warrior. I mean, I think Austin is a terrific wrestler, and had a huge fan base, but the only things people know him for is the Attitude Era and doing the same **** with Vince every Monday. It got old, and very repetitive. But once again, great wrestler, but I just hated his gimmick, and parts of his feud with Vince. Austin is just praised too much, while other wrestlers should be. Also, kinda like Mark said but different, Austin was in the right place at the right time. I'm sure WWE, or WWF, could have found someone else to carry the Attitude Era. This is 100% ricockulous. If anyone could have filled Austin's role, since you claim he was just a guy in the right place at the right time, then why didn't anyone else step up? Austin was an excellent wrestler in addition to bringing a new character that was basically not a character at all. I haven't read this thread. I just want to briefly say. No, not overrated in anyway, hes an awesome wrestler, and even awesomer on the mic and in promos, hes one of the best. Please...someone tell me why Austin is such a wonderful wrestler. He is not. He is talented on the mic. He was over like no one else (except for the Rock and Hogan). People worshipped him. But Austin was NOT good in the ring. He had no moves. He stomped a lot. He did the Lou Thez Press a lot. He had the Stunner, which was entertaining at times, but it kind of got old. He was not a good wrestler. That is not what his character was about. He just beat you up with punches and kicks and a stunner. I cannot think of a very good match with Austin in it that was not carried by someone else. He had a good match at WM15 with HBK, but Michaels carried Austin that night, and Michaels could barely walk. I do not want to argue that Austin did not change wrestling. I am just saying, flat out, he was a bad wrestler.
|
|
hurrimark
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 16, 2008 7:25:24 GMT -5
Posts: 1,588
|
Post by hurrimark on Dec 11, 2008 15:28:32 GMT -5
It's silly to choose between Austin and Rock for the "best of all time". You are talking about short-term superstars. Rock barely got 4 years as a top-draw. Austin about 5. These guys are nowhere near Hogan, Flair, or Undertaker. Guys like Austin and Rock are similar to Ultimate Warrior or Goldberg. Short-term, big-impact stars. But that's about it. "Your favorite" does NOT mean "best ever". It depends when people started watching. If it's from 1998 plus of course they are going to think austin or rock e.t.c is the best because that's the best they have seen, so it's not exactly silly to say it.
|
|
|
Post by pineappleexpress on Dec 11, 2008 15:34:27 GMT -5
How is Austin a good wrestler? Because he has crowd interaction - something that only the best have. The crowd eat every move up, whether it be a chin lock or a Stunner. It's all well and good if you have a massive moveset with every flip in the book, but if you can't have the audience hanging off every move you make you'll never make it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 8, 2024 11:51:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2008 15:42:00 GMT -5
HHHHHHMMMMMMMMM....Overated?don't think so,I liked Austin cause he was a smash mouth wrestler,then most of the others came over and put them in most likely to be the craptiest move ever,a headlock. The character of Austin was amazing 2,cause i mean out of the blue he brings a big beer truck soaks every1 but,when he did that the guys were a bit dramatic,me personally would love to get soake by beer. AM just sayin
|
|
|
Post by Chicago on Dec 11, 2008 16:58:24 GMT -5
Since some like to get a kick out of calling Austin a bad wrestler, might I suggest you view some of his matches prior to entering the WWF when he was teaming it up with Pillman as the Hollywood Blondes and his singles run thereafter.
He was an excellent worker up until his first few years in the WWF, but injuries slowed him down and forced him to work a brawling style throughout the rest of his career (when he was most popular as 'Stone Cold').
|
|
Honkey
Mid-Carder
Problem?
Joined on: Nov 28, 2008 13:36:35 GMT -5
Posts: 358
|
Post by Honkey on Dec 11, 2008 17:15:36 GMT -5
It's dumbass posts like this that make WF go 'round. Austin overrated, no. Sure, Austin isn't known for be a technical competitor, but he could sure whip the living hell out of your ass. Austin being character didn't work, sure, but Austin being Austin was the single greatest thing that happened to wrestling, end of story.
|
|
|
Post by layton on Dec 11, 2008 17:22:54 GMT -5
Since some like to get a kick out of calling Austin a bad wrestler, might I suggest you view some of his matches prior to entering the WWF when he was teaming it up with Pillman as the Hollywood Blondes and his singles run thereafter. He was an excellent worker up until his first few years in the WWF, but injuries slowed him down and forced him to work a brawling style throughout the rest of his career (when he was most popular as 'Stone Cold'). The thread is about Stone Cold. The topic is "Stone Cold - overrated?" Steve Austin used to be a good worker. He only became popular as Stone Cold, though. I was talking about Stone Cold Steve Austin. Stunning Steve Austin is different, but the thread is not about him. I never mentioned anything about Stunning Steven Austin. Pillman and Austin made a great team, but no one was talking about them. They were talking about Stone Cold-who is not a good wrestler at all. Do not try to be a smart ass and say "Watch this; watch that. You know nothing about wrestling." I understand that Austin was better earlier in his career. But when people started really catching onto him, he was already injured and could not work that well. His character is not overrated at all. He was great. His wrestling is, because I am sure that a majority of the people that love Steve Austin were not fans of his/even around in his Hollywood Blondes years.
|
|
|
Post by slapp123 on Dec 11, 2008 17:29:01 GMT -5
who ever said this is an idiot
|
|
|
Post by Chicago on Dec 11, 2008 17:31:30 GMT -5
Since some like to get a kick out of calling Austin a bad wrestler, might I suggest you view some of his matches prior to entering the WWF when he was teaming it up with Pillman as the Hollywood Blondes and his singles run thereafter. He was an excellent worker up until his first few years in the WWF, but injuries slowed him down and forced him to work a brawling style throughout the rest of his career (when he was most popular as 'Stone Cold'). The thread is about Stone Cold. The topic is "Stone Cold - overrated?" Steve Austin used to be a good worker. He only became popular as Stone Cold, though. I was talking about Stone Cold Steve Austin. Stunning Steve Austin is different, but the thread is not about him. I never mentioned anything about Stunning Steven Austin. Pillman and Austin made a great team, but no one was talking about them. They were talking about Stone Cold-who is not a good wrestler at all. Do not try to be a smart ass and say "Watch this; watch that. You know nothing about wrestling." I understand that Austin was better earlier in his career. But when people started really catching onto him, he was already injured and could not work that well. His character is not overrated at all. He was great. His wrestling is, because I am sure that a majority of the people that love Steve Austin were not fans of his/even around in his Hollywood Blondes years. Exactly, so as I said, injuries took the better of Austin once he became really popular in the WWF, but he still managed to entertain fans with a different style. Thus, he was not a bad worker, but was limited in his abilities, similar to when Pillman joined the WWF. If by telling the truth that makes me a smartass, that's fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by layton on Dec 11, 2008 17:33:03 GMT -5
How is Austin a good wrestler? Because he has crowd interaction - something that only the best have. The crowd eat every move up, whether it be a chin lock or a Stunner. It's all well and good if you have a massive moveset with every flip in the book, but if you can't have the audience hanging off every move you make you'll never make it. Does not make him a good wrestler. This simply means he was over with the crowd, and he could make them love anything he did. Sure, if the defiant bad-ass is stomping or punching the boss, who is not going to cheer? They ate it up. That does not mean he is a good wrestler. Sure, to be a great performer, you need to know how to work the crowd. Austin is a great performer. Again, that does not make him a good, technically sound wrestler.
|
|
|
Post by layton on Dec 11, 2008 17:38:47 GMT -5
The thread is about Stone Cold. The topic is "Stone Cold - overrated?" Steve Austin used to be a good worker. He only became popular as Stone Cold, though. I was talking about Stone Cold Steve Austin. Stunning Steve Austin is different, but the thread is not about him. I never mentioned anything about Stunning Steven Austin. Pillman and Austin made a great team, but no one was talking about them. They were talking about Stone Cold-who is not a good wrestler at all. Do not try to be a smart ass and say "Watch this; watch that. You know nothing about wrestling." I understand that Austin was better earlier in his career. But when people started really catching onto him, he was already injured and could not work that well. His character is not overrated at all. He was great. His wrestling is, because I am sure that a majority of the people that love Steve Austin were not fans of his/even around in his Hollywood Blondes years. Exactly, so as I said, injuries took the better of Austin once he became really popular in the WWF, but he still managed to entertain fans with a different style. Thus, he was not a bad worker, but was limited in his abilities, similar to when Pillman joined the WWF. If by telling the truth that makes me a smartass, that's fine with me. I never said he did not entertain anyone. He had the crowd at his mercy. He was definitely entertaining, but the reason you liked Austin was because between the really bad matches, he had really great interviews. You knew who he was, and you knew what he was about. Therefore, when he got into the ring, you liked anything he did. Because he was over. Sorry, I will stand by my opinion and say that this does not make him a good wrestler. It has nothing to do with you telling the truth. I said that I knew Austin's history. I just did not want you accusing me or anyone else of not know that Austin used to be better in the ring when he was younger. I know that. That does not mean that Stone Cold was a good wrestler. Because he wasn't. You telling me that he and Pillman put on good matches does not make you a smart ass. That is the truth. They put on good matches. You assuming that I do not know that, and the fact that you do know that makes you superior to me, so you tell me I should go check out older matches...that is what makes you a smart ass.
|
|