How great was Austin

[Guest Kid Kablam]

I've never been a fan of the guy, but apparently all his stuff is top rate. Is he really that great, or was it just the impact he had on Sports Entertainment and Attitude? And what made him so great? I mean, he never had a huge moveset, and they weren't the most impressive moves, so why were so many of his matches ****-*****?

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Two things about Austin that make him great:

 

1. no man in the history of wrestling drew more money over a 5 year span than Stone Cold.

 

2. (Although Bret Hart people will fight me on this) He is second only to Ric Flair as far as top guys having great matches.

 

 

Before his injury in Summer of 97, Austin was a terrific all around wreslter. It wasn't until after the injury that he had to become a brawler. But he was so talented he was able to do that better than everyone else too.

 

When you think of the top 2 biggest stars in the recent history (PPV era) of wrestling...it's Hogan and Austin

 

When you think of great matches in the recent history...Austin is near the top of that list too.

 

A complete package so to speak.

[Guest Kid Kablam]

I guess it's just that I've always looked at someone like Benoit as being the best. But Austin's had a longer string of better matches? Or is that just WWF? I guess, I just want my guy to be the best. No harm in that right? (Sheepish grin)

[Guest Brian]

I've said it before, Austin's has alot of commitment. If he hadn't been wrestling so much through injuries, we'd probably be looking at a man who put on the greatest show in the ring ever. From 1992 until 2001, he showed evidence that he could have been incredibly great through that entire period.

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

I mean, he never had a huge moveset, and they weren't the most impressive moves, so why were so many of his matches ****-*****?

Not picking on you or anything, but I've always believed that the moveset argument as far as great wrestlers are concerned was always bullshit. Two of the most renowned wrestlers ever, Flair and Steamboat, NEVER had dozens of moves, but they've had so many classic matches with each other and other opponents while barely having like 10 moves between them.

 

Basically, like Foley said in his first book, "It's not what you did, it's HOW you do it."(I'm paraphrasing here).

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

I agree 100% with APO.

 

RVD is a prime example of this.

 

He did a million moves in ECW...but his matches were still garbage.

 

And even though he'll disagree with me on this: He has learned to use them better now both for pacing and on rare occassions (coughJUDGMENTDAYcough) to work a body part.

 

And now he's better.

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

Actually, I do agree with you, Bps. Personal dislike of RVD aside, I can admit when someone has improved by leaps and bounds, which is what RVD has done since joining the WWE.

[Guest Brian]

I think a great part of that is he's been forced to do match planning ahead of time rather than just wing it.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Errr, I wouldn't exactly say his matches in ECW were garbage. Actually most of his matches displayed matwork and a buildup towards spots, rather than what we got once ECW went to TNN and had to exploit the few "hardcore" things still left in the company.

[Guest MrRant]

Austin was up there with Flair when it came to ring psychology. And to me that is a very important part.

[Guest Kid Kablam]

I have started to notice that psychology is where it's at aas opposed to moveste, and sometimes I've even found too many moves a distraction. One more question then to pretty much anyone, who are your modern era psychology masters. I really haven't been watching wrestling enough to see em all (but I'm downloading as much as I can) and so I can't offer you MY list per se, but the general consensus seems to be

1) Flair

2) Brett Hart

3) Steve Austin

 

That just comes from reading some of Scott Kieth's reviews and a lot of the postings on the board. Again, I'm trying to stay out of this because I'm being a student right now and attempting to understand this strange but amazing world of wrestling (Now movies I understand, but wrestling I'm new at)

[Guest Kid Kablam]

I put only 3 but please include as many as possible as I want to track down videos of as many as I can. also, as you may have been able to tell from previous posts, my favorite is Benoit, so where would you rank him?

[Guest thefrenchargel]

I put only 3 but please include as many as possible as I want to track down videos of as many as I can. also, as you may have been able to tell from previous posts, my favorite is Benoit, so where would you rank him?

You want Austin, I'll give ya some Austin..

 

First track down his good WWF stuff, as that will probably get you hooked.

 

Get his matches w/ Bret Hart at 1996 Survivor Series (Best WWF match ever, IMO) and the Submission match with Bret at Wrestlemania 13. Both are generally regarded as *****, but I think the Survivor Series match was that much better.

 

Any of the Austin vs. Dude Love matches are worth it, as Austin vs. McMahon was running in full swing, and the matches are wild incredible brawls with INSANE crowd heat.

 

Final Four from Feb. 1997 is really good, and contains Austin's first big setback in the WWF in the form of a knee injury. Watching the match, you can't even tell it happened because everyone else covered so well.

 

1996 KOTR has a really good Austin vs. Marc Mero match, as well as the fabled Austin 3:16 interview.

 

1997 KOTR had an AWESOME Austin vs. Shawn Michaels match. ****3/4, In my opinion.

 

That's just a good handful to start with. Basically anything with Austin in 96 is good. Most of 97, too, until he broke his neck at Summerslam in his match with Owen, which is an awesome match until the injury. His 98 stuff is pretty much all in the Austin vs. McMahon feud, which was entertaining, but might not be your thing. 99 was not a good year for anyone. 2000 he was barely there, and he ruled it in 2001. Check out the HHH/Austin vs. Jericho/Benoit tag from Raw and the Austin/Benoit match from Smackdown if you by any chance haven't seen them. Austin vs. HHH 2/3 falls from No Way Out 2001 is a ***** brawl. Austin vs. Angle under any circumstances rules. Rock vs. Austin is a pretty good matchup generally as well.

 

I don't have a whole lot of his stuff with Pillman as the Hollywood Blonds, but the matches with Steamboat/Shane Douglas all rule, as do any Blonds/Horsemen matches. Someone else could probably tell you more about his WCW stint. Any tape trader worth his salt can probably get you any and all of the above matches. His matches with Hart are must-see.

[Guest BionicRedneck]

Other than Ric Flair, i would say Steve Austin is the greatest all rounder in wrestling history.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

I agree.

 

And Austin's uncanny drawing power puts him at the very top of my list of the GREATEST EVER.

[Guest FeArHaVoC]

I've always believed that the moveset argument as far as great wrestlers are concerned was always bullshit. Two of the most renowned wrestlers ever, Flair and Steamboat, NEVER had dozens of moves, but they've had so many classic matches with each other and other opponents while barely having like 10 moves between them.

 

Basically, like Foley said in his first book, "It's not what you did, it's HOW you do it."(I'm paraphrasing here).

I totally agree with this 110%. You know why guys like Benoit and Malenko look like Gods in the ring with all their move set? Because they know how and when to bust out those moves. That's my problem with MOST, not all, MOST, Cruiserweight Wrestlers. They know how to Execute these moves but they don't chain them together right.

 

An other example along with Flair & Steamboat. Most wrestlers in the business with say him too. Jake Roberts! The guy really didn't do a God Damn thing in the ring, BUT, everything he did made sence.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Ted Dibiase is another great wrestler with a poor moveset. Randy Savage as well.

[Guest saturnmark4life]

Austin was just SO AMAZINGLY AWESOME. for pretty much all the reasons listed. It's pretty much standard that main event talent requires ring psychology>moveset anyways. He appealed to the largest group of people, popular with teenagers because he was going against the grain whilst retaining old skool badass-ness for all the older hicks.

[Guest FeArHaVoC]

Some may argue this, but Ricky Morton could be thrown in here too.

[Guest Brian]

"That's my problem with MOST, not all, MOST, Cruiserweight Wrestlers. They know how to Execute these moves but they don't chain them together right."

 

Dude, WCW cruiserweight wrestling doesn't count for much as for the most part when they found their niche the division never became progressive again.

[Guest saturnmark4life]

if we're talking great with limited moves, MICK FUCKING FOLEY.

[Guest thebigjig]

Yeah Austin didn't have a huge impressive moveset. This is true. BUT, it doesn't really matter how many moves, or what moves you are capable of doing... it's how you do those moves, and what kind of reaction you get from doing them. Look at Ric Flair for example. Honestly, if you watch a ton of Flair matches, you'll notice that he doesn't have any flashy moves either. And it doesn't matter. He knew the psychology of it all and knew what to do and when to do it to get the crowd going. Same with Austin.

 

 

If you need further proof that Austin was at one time on the level of Bret Hart, watch his match with Bret at Survivor Series 96. I believe that this has often been called the last great wrestling match of it's kind in North America.

[Guest Austin3164life]

I agree.

 

And Austin's uncanny drawing power puts him at the very top of my list of the GREATEST EVER.

Exactly my sentiments. There are only three wrestlers whom I can say have had absolutely GOLDEN careers and without them, pro-wrestling wouldn't be where it is today. Excluding Hogan, these three are Ric Flair, Bret "The Hitman" Hart, and Stone Cold Steve Austin. These three were so good that they could usually pull a solid match out of anyone they worked with. All three had great charisma and knew how to draw an audience on the mic as well as in the ring. And that's where these three excell at. Austin, Hart, and Flair could tell a great story in a match. Their psychology that they use is great, and makes the match look believable to the mark's eye. My favorite type of wrestler is a combination of a Brawler, a Submissionist, and a Technical worker. Flair, Hart, and Austin are a combination of these three, and that's what makes them so great. Combine that with the fact that these three men were very over with the fans and you have three of the greatest North American wrestlers of all time.

 

The thing that makes Austin be in Flair's and Hart's league is that Austin is extremely economical in the ring. He even mentions that a great wrestler doesn't have to have 100 moves (in his "SCSA WHAT?" video). Savage, DiBiase, Steamboat, Flair, Hart, and Austin didn't have 20-30 moves in their arsenal, but they used their excellent psychology to tell a great story, work the fans, and put on a good match. Basically, these guys didn't actually do a lot of things in the ring, but what they did made sense, which is why they are excellent economical workers.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

I can't see how Flair and Austin can be called 'all-rounders', unless you are talking about drawing, promos, and matches. But in terms of personal style, they were very by the numbers; which isn't to say that they weren't great, but when I hear 'all rounders' I think of guys like Ultimo Dragon, Chris Benoit, Shinjiro Ohtani, Jushin Lyger, Kenta Kobashi, Mitsuharu Misawa. As in guys who can fly, strike, mat, submit..basically 'do it all' in the ring.

[Guest BionicRedneck]

When refering to Austin as an "All-Rounder" i ment wrestling, ring presence, character, interviews, drawing power etc.

[Guest FeArHaVoC]

"That's my problem with MOST, not all, MOST, Cruiserweight Wrestlers. They know how to Execute these moves but they don't chain them together right."

 

Dude, WCW cruiserweight wrestling doesn't count for much as for the most part when they found their niche the division never became progressive again.

I was pretty much talking about WcW Cruiserweights being the ones I liked. Ultimo Dragon, Jericho, Guerrero's, Malenko, Benoit, etc. I was more or less taking shots at the recent stuff in the last 3 years.

 

Side Note: I do however like alot coming from the "X" Division in NWA:TNA, but even that I have to shake my head at most of the time.

[Guest Dark Fusion]

When refering to Austin as an "All-Rounder" i ment wrestling, ring presence, character, interviews, drawing power etc.

thats why Austin was and still is my #1 Fave WWE Wrestler of all time....also in my list is

 

Dead Man(Undertaker for those of you who dont know)

Flair

HHH

Benoit

HBK(anyone forget about this guy?)

Trish Stratus(see avatar)

[Guest RicFlairGlory]

When refering to Austin as an "All-Rounder" i ment wrestling, ring presence, character, interviews, drawing power etc.

thats why Austin was and still is my #1 Fave WWE Wrestler of all time....also in my list is

 

Dead Man(Undertaker for those of you who dont know)

Flair

HHH

Benoit

HBK(anyone forget about this guy?)

Trish Stratus(see avatar)

I think that secondary list SHOULD disqualify his pick

 

How can anybody HONESTLY say Trish, HHH, and Benoit are three of the top 7 (WWE?) talent of all time?

[Guest undisputedjericho]

Look at Austin and Foley's movesets. Very small. Together they put on the best match of the awesome year that was 1998.

[Guest benoitrules2000]

What have you got against benoit?

And havin taker on the list?

WTF?