austin bigger than rock?only a crakhed would agree

[Guest JHawk]

That was one show. I was at the Smackdown taping before the last Wrestlemania and the pop for Rocky was significantly bigger than the pop for Austin - which suprised me at the time, given the booking.

 

And at the Raw prior to that, Austin got the bigger pop.  I was there among the fans popping for Austin.  It depends on where the taping/house show's held and who pays for their tickets.

 

Personally, I can't say which one's bigger necessarily.  Rock's bigger as far as mainstream coverage but Austin seems to get more respect from a fan's standpoint.  I do know I prefer to watch Austin's matches because he can do a mat-based match when it's warranted and a brawl when it's warranted, and Rock's matches tend to be more punch, punch, spit punch, shitty sharpshooter, Rock Bottom, People's Elbow.  When Rock breaks from that formula (Judgment Day 2000 vs. HHH for one example) he's great to watch too, but he doesn't break from it so often.  Not to say Austin isn't predictable as well, but he seems to vary his offense more often.

[Guest Anthony]

OMG

we are not going to introduce their won-lost record against each other into this argument are we?

Its like Austin (infinity) vs Rock (zero).

i think in an already ludicrous discusssion we cannot take that for any relevance.

Thats like this drunk guy a a really bad Thunder years ago.

This dude was yelling at everyone "hogan's the best" "hogan's the greatest of all time".

Me and my friends just finally asked him why he was the best cause he wasnt on the damn show and this guy went on and on for 90 minutes.

His reply:

"He's the champ!"

well are (whoever were the tag champs at the time) the best?

"No!!! they suck!!"

Well, they are the champions.

"They are???? theyre the best team in the woooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlllllllllllddddddddddddd!!!!!! Hogan rules!!!!"

 

Hey if you wanna accept somebody as being better cause theyre booked that way by some random third party i guess thats cool, it just seems weird.

The point is, if Rock was so much more bigger than Austin, he would've won at the WWF's biggest event of the year against Austin, but instead he lost...not once, but twice.

 

Also, the person who started this thread is quite biased. "I hate Austin with a passion"

uh rock lost to austin the first tiume cause rock was a heel and the second time because he took the time off to do his movie....it wouldn't look right if rock wins then looses it the very next night on raw.....That can kill his character and that is also something austin would not do either........Good god you certainly are the crackhead...

Excuses.

[Guest converge241]

Excuses for what?

That's a lot of stuff cut and pasted.

Way back in this "discussion" I stated that good cases could be made either way, and "at gunpoint" I would pick Austin.

The this all got dragged into "LARRYLAND"

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

dmos.

 

How can you say Austin didn't get people to tune in by himself when he "revolutionized" the business...then turn around and say that Rock carried the WWF in 2000?

[Guest The_Man]

Er, this is my first post so please don't shoot me.

 

Now, you should know that personally I find the Rock to be much more entertaining than Austin so that probably clouds my argument.

 

Firstly, the "Rock never carried the company" argument.  Well, its true that most storylines around 2000 revolved around HGH, but that doesn't really matter.  What matters is what drew people to buy tickets and watch RAW.  Do you think it was those 20 minute promos that started every fuckin' RAW?  I don't.  I think it had more to do with the guy who was the number one face and who would come out and mock HGH after his promos.  The fans pay to see the face give the heel his comeuppance, not see the heel come out every week and say the same damn thing.

 

Now, while Austin started the WWFs resurrection and eventual defeat of WCW in '98, who carried the WWF to the peak of their popularity whilst Austin was out injured?  The boring guy with long hair who always said "I am that damn good!" and not a whole lot else?  (Hey I like HGH just fine, but the cynic in me says he got booed so much because he was so damn boring)

 

Also, I think it is worth noting that the Rock has never had the booking of the company behind him as much as has Austin.  I mean

Austin - Won 3 rumbles ('97, '98, '01), Won 3 mania's ('98, '99, '01), and has been pushed as the number one guy since 97-98.  Refused to feud with Jeff Jarrett.  Apparently can get his way backstage with Vince anytime he likes.  Refused to drop IC belt to Rocky in late '97, resulting in bullshit "belt-stripping".  I thought HBK was hated for not dropping belts in the ring?

Rock - Won 1 rumble ('00), Lost 3 mania's ('99, '00, '01) - even though he was the face TWICE, and has been put in feuds with Billy fuckin' Gunn and Big Show which still drew fans.  Has never complained or refused to feud with anyone.  Will job to anyone.

 

Finally I will say this, Rocky was arguably the man most instrumental in the elevations of HHH, Foley and Jericho.  Who has Austin ever elevated?

 

And

In the nWo's RAW debut they beat the shit out of Rocky, who doesn't even try to fight back, selling it like he's dead and putting the old guys over huge.

Austin keeps fighting back even after they've kicked the crap out of him, making them (and the angle) look like crap, before pulling his 'net-gun' shit and 'drive the vehicle into the arena' crap that was boring two fuckin' years ago.

 

I just realised how negative that was towards Stone Cold.  Ah well, sorry I didn't mean to be so biased, but I do honestly think that the Rock has done more for the company.

[Guest dmos1]

I never said that Rock carried the WWF by himself in 2000, just that he was the main star and draw.

 

Austin never carried the WWF by himself, he had Bret, Vince, Undertaker, Rock and DX - however he was the main draw during his first run at the top.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Didn't he just finish a 9 month run with the title?

 

Who was the #1 guy then?

 

Since Austin was a heel...it couldn't be him...so I gues it was.....?

[Guest dmos1]

You can be a heel and the top draw, just like having the belt doesn't automatically make you the #1 draw.

 

During Diesel's run with the belt, it was widely believed that Shawn Michaels was the top draw. 3H held the belt for most of fall 1999, but he was anything  but the company's top draw during that time.

[Guest The_Man]

Didn't he just finish a 9 month run with the title?

 

Who was the #1 guy then?

 

Since Austin was a heel...it couldn't be him...so I gues it was.....?

 

Well, at various times it was 'Taker, Hardys, Canadian Chrises and Angle.

 

It's also worth noting that if Austin was meant to be number one last year, he failed miserably as the WWF lost about 20-30% of its audience.  Most leaving in the weeks after 'Mania with HeelAustinmania running wild.  Strangely, this co-incided with the absence of the Rock.

[Guest godthedog]

first, about triple h's elevation: the rock was NOT the most instrumental.  mick foley MADE triple h.  trips & rocky made each other look good through mid-2000, but rock never made trips look good at his own expense (unlike foley).

 

reading between the lines about steve austin & the bookers, it seems like you're implying austin does a lot of hbk-like string-pulling to ensure his position.  i don't think austin's paranoid about his position so much as vince is unusually protective of him (and rightly so).  he has better matches than rocky, he still wrestles despite being practically crippled, his character revolutionized the entire business and was instrumental in saving the company.  rocky is barely 30 and never gets hurt: his career is basically still just beginning.  when austin first came into the wwf, he was older than the rock is now.  i believe vince is planning on giving the rock his time in the sun as the NUMBERONEUBERCOMPANYMAN, & is keeping austin on top basically out of loyalty for everything he's done.

 

and if by 'elevating' you mean taking a significant loss or making someone look good, austin's elevated kane, kurt angle & chris benoit.

 

and don't blame the 'net gun' and 'drive the vehicle into the arena' crap on austin.  it's just bad writing.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

The audience left ecause the heel turn went bad.

 

Besides, they all came beack at the start of the invasion and then the angle went bad too.

 

I've looked at the ratings for this time period before for another discussion.

 

The ratings tanked when UT & Kane were in a 2 month program with Austin & HHH.  They stabilized for Y2J and Benoit.  Went up at the beginning of Invasion (which popped a huge buyrate for a ppv).  Then sank when the angle fell flat.

 

And as for Rock...his return gained .3 ratings for the week...the next week they were down to the same # as before he came back..and within 2 months they had fallen into the 3's.

[Guest mastermind]

THIS IS A DISCUSSION BY ANOTEHR FORUM AND I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR HERE....REPEAT OTHER PEOPLE'S POST NOT MINE(since last time people attacked me for other's opinions at another post).

 

> Hogan has been back for all of a month now, and aside from

> the fans recognizing his past with the initial chants, the

> WWF has been minimal in discussing all that he's done. I

> know they're not hiding it, but it seems like there is

> something missing in how they've gone about it. Not saying

> it's easy with him playing a heel now, just missing

> something.

 

I agree with you here. But the WWF's promotion and angle writing as a whole has been missing something for about 10 months now. Somehow, I knew they'd garble the return of Hulk Hogan up as much as they messed up the Invasion and as much as they will probably screw up Bret Hart's return (if they hammer out the rumoured deal)

 

> The Rock is a widely recognized wrestler and perhaps the

> most popular with his movies and other appearances outside

> of wrestling. But Steve Austin is the man that put the WWF

> back on top and put it past WCW. He was neccessary for the

> success the WWF has had, and in that thinking, a large part

> of the reason the WWF has established the monopoly it has.

 

I agree with you here. But by your definition, doesn't McMahon make as much sense as Austin? I mean Austin would not have been 'the man' without the Mr. McMahon character and vice versa. I think that it was not only Austin's amazing work ethic and character that brought him and the company at the time, up, but in fact it was a superior angle. That could not have worked if they didn't have those players. Much like nWo. Would it have been as affective had it not been for Hogan, hall and Nash? I doubt it. However it works both way, as the angle also breathed new life into these otherwise stale characters.

 

Rock on the other hand was different. He had no one guy to make him a star. (You can argue Foley however) But Rock's appeal was his unparalleled charisma. Surpassing even Austin. And Rock coupled that appeal with babyface looks, quick learning, intensity in the ring and having a good reputation for doing what's right for business and not having any problems with jobbing or having a lower spot if it helps the company.

 

That good attitude and everything else is what gave him the crossover appeal. There is the quintessential person and persona that you want to represent your company. The guy that is 'hip' to the current times and entertaining to watch. the Young, respectful, talented and charismatic. For those reasons he is a bigger star than Austin.

 

> The Rock on the other hand, has been mostly entertaining,

> but all of his title reigns, the WWF could have lived

> without.

 

Well again I may have to disagree with you. His first 3 title reigns came with his battles with Foley. They made him a credible heel in order to sell WM 15. Without those battles and back and forth title switching (and crushing of Foley) he wouldn't have looked strong as the 'corporate champ'

 

Then we have the 2 times (I believe) with Hunter. This may have been less neccessary but again the WWF knew that they were headed into a long term feud with Rock and HHH. With Austin and UT out at the time and Angle and Jericho not quite ready, those two were going to be headlining a lot of shows. So to keep it interesting, and keep Hunter over as a top guy (as was needed at the time) some switching had to go back and forth.

 

Then the final time was beating Angle last year. Again the main event was Rock/Austin and one had to have the title going in. Since everyone knew Austin was walking out with the belt and a title change at WM17 was needed for his heel turn and to complete the angle and the show, you needed to give it to Rock.

 

So again, a case could be made that all 6 reigns were needed.

 

> I'm not taking away from what the Rock has done or saying

> he doesn't deserve to be in the main event at

> Wrestlemania... Just that if the WWF is gonna have a match

> featuring Hulk Hogan against a current star and call it the

> match for the ages and to decide who the GREATEST wwf

> champion of all time is, Steve Austin should be in there

> and not the Rock. And in saying that, the criteria changed.

> It went from seeing who the best is right now or who wants

> to win the match more, to a comparison of accomplishments

> and careers. Let's face it, the Rock may have all he has

> going for him, but it still only adds up to a half of what

> Hogan brings to the table in past credentials.

 

Ugh, I'm sorry again but I have to disagree. If anything, Rock has surpassed Hogan.

 

But let me address your first point here with Austin. You see Austin is a phenomenal performer. He is a great talker and and overall standout superstar. There is no doubt. He is up there with the likes of Savage, Steamboat, Flair etc.

 

But Hogan vs. Rock, although it has not been built up this way, means a lot more. It's literally the two biggest ICON's in the sport. Work ethic and wrestling ability have little to do with the appeal. Hogan is what gave wrestling (WWF in particular) the mainstream attention and recognition it has enjoyed for the last 20 years. Even during the company's lean years, it was still functioning on a worldwide scale. Business was only down because they had such a high overhead compared to the days of smoke filled gymnasiums. Hogan set the bar that high. He's the reason wrestling is what it is.

 

No one to date had reached that bar in terms of success. No one. Austin came very very close and in fact did wonders for the business, but in the end, he's no Hulk Hogan. (It should be noted that the reverse is true too. While Hogan is great in terms of performance, he's no Steve Austin)

 

The first person to touch that bar was Rock. Rock got the big budget movies, he got the late night talk show bookings, he got to host Saturday Night Live, he got to present awards, he got to work with real musicians, he got to be 'bigger than the business itself'. I think only he and Hogan have ever done that.

 

And addressing your second point, I do think that in today's times. Where the rock n' wrestling is tacky and the sports entertainment aspect of wrestling is no longer a novel approach, it is harder to reach Hogan's level. I think that with up to 11 hours of WWF programming on each week and PPV's every month, with the internet and huge roster of potential draws. With more critics and more people who know the business better and with all the politics, it is really quite a feat Rock has accomplished. It was harder for him to reach where he did than Hogan, who could've been substituted for any big guy that loved America. It was easier to market hogan back then. Patriotism was considered 'cool', National TV was new to wrestling, sports entertainment was brand new. It was touch and go.

 

Rock did it in tougher times.

 

And there you have it, from my side, the battle of the two biggest Icons in this business. Like them or hate them for what they stand for, they drew money. More than anyone else and that's what this match is all about.

 

If it was promoted right it should therefore outdraw just about any other match ever, because of rock and hogan's appeal (let alone the appeal of them meeting in the ring)

 

But you hype it up for one month with a killer promo and then a typical heal generating stunt. It discredits it. Cheapens it.

[Guest mastermind]

Another discussion bit by OTHER people. I'm doing this to increase the differing opinions on the net for the discussion here. That way you can draw a better conclusion with more input of "smart" fans. The following....

 

 

> I hear what you're saying, but using possibilities of

> "push" or politics as a reason to justify who

> should win or lose was way off from where I was coming

> from. I can't dispute what you're saying, the Rock DOES

> have more to gain, and in fact, the company would probably

> benefit more from him winning, too. What I was referring to

> was simply that because the Rock made the statement that

> they should have a match to decide who the greatest WWF

> champion EVER was, he stepped out of his league considering

> who he was talking to.

 

Yes, but it's just a catchy gimmick name to make the match sound more important than it is. No one is really going to look at it like that because of Hogan's age.

 

> And whether or not Austin projects a better image than the

> Rock is irrelevant. The fact is, Austin has had better,

> more memorable title runs, that meant more to the WWF than

> the Rock's title reigns. And his don't stack up to Hogan's

> either.

 

The thing is his image will most likely make him into a bigger star than Austin ever was in a few years. This is the guy that will be carrying the WWF on its shoulders when Stone Cold retires. Right now its important because Vince wants to attract some extra attention and make this sound like one of the most important matches ever, while Rock is probably the most well known to non wrestling fans since Hogan. Look at the video packages they played on Raw and Smackdown. There was a little bit of WWF, but most of it had to do with how big of a star they are outside of wrestling. Austin could never make something on that scale since the biggest thing he did out of the ring was a few shows on Nash Bridges.

 

In the long term it's important because Austin's at the end of his career, and the Rock's just about in the middle. Austin honestly doesn't have anything to gain or prove from beating Hogan. He's been decimating opponents for 5 years straight. However in a few years when Rock is still main eventing PPVs, you can look back at WMs and see Hogan beating Andre, Warrior beating Hogan, Shawn beating Bret, Austin beating Shawn, and Rock beating Hogan, and you can see what made him go to the top. Just beating Austin isn't enough, Steve's got too many wins over him.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

David Arquette is a movie star.

 

I guess he's an Icon too.

 

I'll stand by my claim that you can't be an icon in WRESTLING when you've only been in the business for 6 years.  minus 6 months for filming the mivie makes 5.5.  Minus  the first 2 years before he won the title.  Makes 3.5 years as a "star" in the sport.

[Guest converge241]

Arquette the Icon.

How scary was it that he got on Tv with that "Former World Champion" sign.

How much scarier was it was the fact that he was justified in doing that?

anyways rock is NOT an Icon,yet

[Guest dmos1]

The Rock's return overrun is still the highest rated single wrestler-driven TV segment since last Wrestlemania. And the ratings always drop in the fall because of the NFL.

 

And nobody, except Vince Russo, identifies wrestling with David Arquette. On the other hand an incredibly wide range of people identify wrestling with the Rock.

 

As far as the time factor is concerned, Austin is an icon based on his work in 1997, 98 and part of 99. When fans think of Stone Cold they don't identify him with Stunning Steve or even the Ringmaster. So why can't Rock be considered an icon based on a comparative amount of time in the spotlight?

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Because he has never been the top guy.

 

Did this just escape everyone?

 

Before the WWF started calling the Rock one of the two biggest Icons...we souldn't be having this discussion.

[Guest dmos1]

Eh? The Rock has been the WWF's top draw at different periods, especially during 2000, when the WWF did its best business.

 

HHH held the belt longer in the storyline, but Rock was the one putting the butts in the seats and selling the PPV's. HHH didn't headline a single PPV in summer 2000 without Rocky - who just happened to be in every one. Actually 3H only headlined one PPV without Rocky after Wrestlemania 2000 - and that was with Steve Austin.

[Guest The_Man]

I just realised bps21 was Hardcore Champion.  That would be cool if Goldust wasn't champ in real life.  Maybe bps21 should be champ, he's probably a better worker.  HA, cliched smark humor rules.

 

Er, anyway I think the main argument here is if Rock is really a bigger star than Stone Cold (nobody has really questioned Hogan's place).  

 

Well, I think this may be a kayfabe kind of deal where the WWF is just saying it to draw numbers, I mean they probably will have Austin/Hogan down the line (Summerslam?), and they're just going to sell the matches in different ways, with Austin/Hogan being more of a "I jobbed to Hacksaw Jim WHAT?" grudge match, and Rock/Hogan being the "Icon" match.

 

Whether or not Rocky is an icon, well thats a matter of opinion.  I think the facts are that he is a huge draw and is one of the most popular wrestlers ever.  I don't think the marks are having any trouble swallowing the Icon stuff.

 

Sure he didn't boost the ratings long term last year after his initial ratings pop, but then again nobody has, not even Flair or the nWo, which leads me to believe that wrestling in general is just not as popular, rather than the waning drawing power of certain stars.

 

Anyway, I personally think they should have given us the heel Austin/face Rock match last year.  They held of on blowing it off and now it seems like it has been forgotten.  (Yay beer drinking!  What chair beatdown and screwjob?)  Maybe that could have boosted ratings rather than Angle/Austin, which I enjoyed but got stale when it ran as the main on roughly 37 straight PPVs.

 

So, the whole "Rock or Austin?" thing is a matter of opinion as there is evidence that supports both guys as being icons.  I say Rock, you say Austin.  No big deal, just a different opinion and never shall the twain meet.  At least they didn't try and sell HHH as the icon who can walk on water and single-handedly save the WWF.

 

Yet.

[Guest dmos1]

"So, the whole "Rock or Austin?" thing is a matter of opinion as there is evidence that supports both guys as being icons.  I say Rock, you say Austin.  No big deal, just a different opinion and never shall the twain meet.  At least they didn't try and sell HHH as the icon who can walk on water and single-handedly save the WWF."

 

Amen.

[Guest converge241]

hallejluah to your amen brother.

I said that way back in the thread. Its just a personal opinion. most of the "proof" people are giving are non-facts that are vague and abstract and open to manipulation and various interpretations.