Aaron Williams badmouths Canadians

[Damaramu 0]

Actually 2001 had some of his best matches ever. And he was setting the WWF on fire in 1997.

I'm still amazed you think that No Mercy tag match was better than Austin's best match. Hell Summerslam with Angle was better than the No Mercy tag match!

 

What will we have to do to beat it through your thick skull that Austin is a good wrestler!? Well you obviously don't know enough about wrestling so I guess this is an impossible argument...

[Guest JMA]

This thread needs more WWE bashing and less serious debate.

[CanadianChick 0]

Oh Jesus Christ TMD, your points haven't even been specific enough to convince me that he's a great wrestler. All you are really saying is that I'm stupid and don't know what good wrestling is. I just don't like Austin's matches in general and fail to see what makes him an all-time great wrestler. He is good, just not great. I believe I said that already.

 

Oh, and just because I'm saying Austin isn't a great wrestler doesn't mean that I don't know wrestling.

[Guest Ray]

Wrestlemania 17: Man wanting belt. Yeah, deep.

Summerslam 2001: Paranoid man wanting to keep built. Another deep one.

Did you even watch those matches? I'd ask you to watch them again, to see and appreciate Austin's wonderful performances.

 

Deep storyline? I covered that already.

Enormous intensity? Sure, there was intensity. I'll give you that.

Superb facial expressions? I'll keep this in mind the next time I judge the greatness of a match. Because, you know, the facial expressions just MAKE a match.

Facial expressions are a key ingredient in the story of a match. Austin's were superb. Austin's facial expressions alone make 17 worth watching.

 

You know what? Rock did the 'desperate man willing to win belt' just as well as Austin.

Oh no, he did not.

 

No, he wasn't.

Like I said...some people just can't or won't see Austin's greatness. He did so many great things...yet he's still seen as "just a punch-kicker."

 

That match sucked- Stupid ending that made no one look good and was flat through out

No, it didn't. It wasn't a **** classic, but it shows Austin playing his paranoid/obsessive heel character quite well.

 

fail to see what makes him an all-time great wrestler.

As I said, amazingly deep storytelling, great selling, great facial expressions, smart ring psychology, etc....

[Damaramu 0]

Yes it does. Because Austin is a great wrestler. Watch the matches. That's the best proof there is.

Ok what's was the No Mercy tag match? It was WWE style to the core. You cannot have a logical good match using WWE style. It is punch, punch, spot, punch, spot.

Was WWE style created for Austin when he was injured? Yes. Did he use it once he was better? No.

His matches evolved from punch, spot, punch, spot in 2001. He started making every movement mean something. Go ahead watch the match with Angle at Summerslam. No movement is wasted. Everything makes sense.

Now watch the No Mercy tag match. It is all spot. All flash no go.

Doing a bunch of flashy moves doesn't make you a great wrestler. If that was true Albert would be god. You could literally know 10 moves and still be the best wrestler in the world. As long as those moves mean something and as long as those moves make sense.

Austin gets in there and he uses what he knows logically and afterwards I sit back and think "Wow that was a good match." not "Wow that was entertaining...great spots."

You want more proof? Watch his FIRST match with Benoit. In December of 2000. That match is without a doubt one of Austin's best matches. Much better than the Edmonton match. Watch it.

Watch the Summerslam match.

Watch Survivor Series and WM with Bret Hart.

Hell watch King of the Ring with Marc Mero!

If you pay attention you will see it! The man does not waste motions and the man does not do useless spots just to pop the crowd.

[bob_barron 0]

No, it didn't. It wasn't a **** classic, but it shows Austin playing his paranoid/obsessive heel character quite well.

 

Oh God? ****????? The match was **1/4 at best. Foley's role as an enforcer was pointless, the match was flat as they didn't do anything to captivate the crowd and the ending is beyond stupid.

 

Austin didn't give off his paranoid/psychotic vibe there- he gave off his dull yawn vibe

[Guest Ray]

Oh God? ****?????

I said it WASN'T ****.

 

the match was flat as they didn't do anything to captivate the crowd

I recall an active crowd...they were obviously into it.

 

and the ending is beyond stupid.

Which is one reason why the match WASN'T a **** classic. There are plenty of so-called great matches with awful finishes.

 

You act as if I called it better than Misawa-Kawada.

 

Austin didn't give off his paranoid/psychotic vibe there- he gave off his dull yawn vibe

Well, that's just dumb.

 

I don't know what match you were watching, but I saw Austin doing a fine job playing his heel character.

[Guest EternallyLazy]

Actually 2001 had some of his best matches ever. And he was setting the WWF on fire in 1997.

I'm still amazed you think that No Mercy tag match was better than Austin's best match. Hell Summerslam with Angle was better than the No Mercy tag match!

 

What will we have to do to beat it through your thick skull that Austin is a good wrestler!? Well you obviously don't know enough about wrestling so I guess this is an impossible argument...

oh Jesus Christ... so she doesn't think Austin is the greatest wrestler the WWF has ever seen. Big freakin' deal! Why does she have to structure her opinions around what YOU consider to be a great worker?

 

For the record, I dissagree with her for the most part, but saying she doesnt know enough about wrestling JUST because she doesn't view Austin as God is pathetically arrogant and ridiculous

 

its called an opinion, and last time I checked, we're all allowed to have them

[Guest Ray]

its called an opinion,

 

NO, IT IS NOT.

 

It's not an opinion that Austin is one of the best the WWF ever saw. Objective analysis of his work is PROOF of it.

[Damaramu 0]

Whether someone is a great worker or not is not an opinion. Whether they entertain you or not is you opinion.

Just because she doesn't find Austin entertaining doesn't mean he's not a good worker.

This is the same debate as the HBK one.

HBK's a great entertainer. That's an opinion. But HBK's a bad worker and that's not an opinion. You just have to look at things objecitvely to know that.

[CanadianChick 0]

Let me get this straight: Austin is a great worker, but HBK is a bad worker? You have got to be kidding me.

 

And I have gave evidence that Austin isn't a great worker. So whether or not you believe it, there is always room for debate whether or not someone is a good worker.

[Guest EternallyLazy]

its called an opinion,

 

NO, IT IS NOT.

 

It's not an opinion that Austin is one of the best the WWF ever saw. Objective analysis of his work is PROOF of it.

most movie buffs consider Orson Welles Citizen Kane to be the greatest film ever made

 

I however dissagree... while it is a fine film, I do not consider it to be the greatest talking american motion picture of all time

 

So I guess that means I know NOTHING about movies eh? Just because I dont agree with the general consensus?

[Damaramu 0]

Ummm....yes....don't make me give the HBK debate again. The one where me and RavishingRickRudo provide the same reasons for 30 pages while the HBK Marks say "But he carried Sid to a good match!"

[Damaramu 0]

its called an opinion,

 

NO, IT IS NOT.

 

It's not an opinion that Austin is one of the best the WWF ever saw. Objective analysis of his work is PROOF of it.

most movie buffs consider Orson Welles Citizen Kane to be the greatest film ever made

 

I however dissagree... while it is a fine film, I do not consider it to be the greatest talking american motion picture of all time

 

So I guess that means I know NOTHING about movies eh? Just because I dont agree with the general consensus?

Well if there was a certain standard that movies are held to, like a wrestling match(there may be but i'm not a movie buff) and you disagreed in the face of it fitting all the criteria to be a good movie then yes you wouldn't know a thing.

Listen there are certain things that make a match good. There are certain things that make someone a good worker. Austin's matches had these....Austin does these things.

I personally feel the Austin bashing is just because most people don't like him currently(and I agree I hate his ass right now) but just because you have a sour opinion on him doesn't mean you can deny that he's a good worker. He does everything that a good worker does. He tells a great story with his matches. He makes every movement mean something. He gets the crowd involved. He plays his role perfectly. How you can deny that Austin is a great worker is beyond me. Hell if the general consensus was "Austin sucks...he's a puncher kicker"(which it seems to be) I'd still be telling them off because they're basically ignoring the evidence.

Hell if this was all based on your opinion or what entertains you then someone could be on here "Well I like matches where they do nothing. Where they just stand there. I find it entertaining and that's my opinion. ***** classics all the way." and we couldn't argue with them. But we can argue with them because there are actually standards and two guys standing there does not equal a good match according to those.

[Guest EternallyLazy]

Ummm....yes....don't make me give the HBK debate again. The one where me and RavishingRickRudo provide the same reasons for 30 pages while the HBK Marks say "But he carried Sid to a good match!"

allow me to jump in on this too

 

most of the wrestlers I have had the privilidge of talking to over the years have listed HBK as an amazing worker... even Bret Hart claims he was an amazing worker... it is my opinion that Shawn was an amazing worker through my own eyes

 

but I guess I should discard that, including the opinions of WRESTLERS such as Bret Hart... men that have worked with the man, men that have wrestled for years... men that would know a good worker a hell of alot better than an educated FAN... just because an internet mark says I should?

[Damaramu 0]

I personally feel that half of these men are either:

a) just saying that because of all the fans that are entertained by him

b) are just spouting it off because they're buddy buddy with him

and we know that Bret Hart falls into category A.

Could Shawn Michaels put on an entertaining match? Yes. But in what universe does taking EVERYTHING your opponent can hit you with and then leaping up and beating them with ONE KICK make a good match? Oh that's right it doesn't....

[Guest Ray]

Let me get this straight: Austin is a great worker, but HBK is a bad worker? You have got to be kidding me.

Shawn did a ton of stupid shit (nipping up, dancing around, no-selling everything in a Hogan-like comeback), Austin didn't.

 

I wouldn't call Shawn Michaels a "bad" worker, just an insanely overrated one.

 

And I have gave evidence that Austin isn't a great worker.

Calling him just a punch-kicker isn't good enough.

 

most movie buffs consider Orson Welles Citizen Kane to be the greatest film ever made

 

I however dissagree... while it is a fine film, I do not consider it to be the greatest talking american motion picture of all time

 

So I guess that means I know NOTHING about movies eh? Just because I dont agree with the general consensus?

No, the "general consensus" is irrelevant. I never said anything about it. If you analyze something objectively, and give reasons why it is/is not the greatest, then you'll be fine.

 

most of the wrestlers I have had the privilidge of talking to over the years have listed HBK as an amazing worker... even Bret Hart claims he was an amazing worker... it is my opinion that Shawn was an amazing worker through my own eyes

 

but I guess I should discard that, including the opinions of WRESTLERS such as Bret Hart... men that have worked with the man, men that have wrestled for years... men that would know a good worker a hell of alot better than an educated FAN... just because an internet mark says I should?

Simply being a wrestler does not make them experts on all things related to wrestling.

 

If Bret Hart said Kevin Nash was great, would that make it true?

[CanadianChick 0]

Calling him just a punch-kicker isn't good enough.

 

ARG! Have you not been reading my posts at all? I have countered your claims of him being a great worker. ALL OF THEM! I haven't only been saying that he's a punch-kicker.

 

Simply being a wrestler does not make them experts on all things related to wrestling.

But being a fan (even a smart one) does?

 

Just a thought: Austin does the Lou Thesz Press often, does he not? And, in a lot of his matches, his opponents work his knees because he has a knee brace, making them an easy target, right? Doesn't doing the Lou Thesz Press ignore all that work on the knees, since you have to jump in order to do the move?

[Damaramu 0]

He doesn't actually jump high nor does he do it with much spring in his step.

Ok here's an example of objectivity. I can't remember who said it...I think it was Rudo that the NWO2002 Austin/UT match was actually a really good match given the story and psychology used...but it was boring as shit.

[Guest Ray]

ARG! Have you not been reading my posts at all? I have countered your claims of him being a great worker. ALL OF THEM!

No, you didn't. You just posted things such as this:

 

Wrestlemania 17: Man wanting belt. Yeah, deep.

Summerslam 2001: Paranoid man wanting to keep built. Another deep one.

 

You can say whatever you want...you obviously feel he isn't good because he's "just a punch-kicker." That your first reaction to Austin being called great was such a statement, makes it obvious.

 

But being a fan (even a smart one) does?

Nope. I never claimed to know everything, of course.

 

I just can't stand this "Bret Hart said it so it must be true!!1" attitude.

 

Bret Hart saying Shawn was great does not make it true. If he said Benoit was a terrible wrestler, would people say "he knows what he's talking about because he's a wrestler and you aren't!" ???

 

Just a thought: Austin does the Lou Thesz Press often, does he not? And, in a lot of his matches, his opponents work his knees because he has a knee brace, making them an easy target, right? Doesn't doing the Lou Thesz Press ignore all that work on the knees, since you have to jump in order to do the move?

Name a match where his legs are worked over to a severe degree, followed by the LTP. I can't recall one. I'm sure Austin sold poorly at some point, but Shawn did his stupid shit CONSTANTLY.

 

People hate Hogan for doing his "hulk-up." Shawn's ridiculous comebacks are no better.

[CanadianChick 0]

No, you didn't. You just posted things such as this:

 

Wrestlemania 17: Man wanting belt. Yeah, deep.

Summerslam 2001: Paranoid man wanting to keep built. Another deep one.

 

You can say whatever you want...you obviously feel he isn't good because he's "just a punch-kicker." That your first reaction to Austin being called great was such a statement, makes it obvious.

 

Well, you never gave me a reason to think another way, did you? I hear about this great storytelling, but just don't see it. I watch the matches, and while the storytelling is fine, it's not great enough for the praise it gets. And yes, I do feel he's a punch kicker, but that hasn't been my only reasons for why he isn't a great worker.

 

Nope. I never claimed to know everything, of course.

 

I just can't stand this "Bret Hart said it so it must be true!!1" attitude.

 

Bret Hart saying Shawn was great does not make it true. If he said Benoit was a terrible wrestler, would people say "he knows what he's talking about because he's a wrestler and you aren't!" ???

 

But what makes your opinion right, and his opinion wrong in this case? No offence, but I would value the opinions of wrestlers who have faced him and are extremely knowledgable about the business more than a fans. I am not saying that your opinions aren't valueable and that you don't know anything, but the point remains.

 

And I wasn't comparing the Lou Thesz Press to the kip up by any means. I was just musing, that's all. The kip up sucks, I agree, but many wrestler, some who are widely considered good workers, make superman comebacks. Hell, just about every face makes superman comebacks in big matches.

[Austin3164life 0]

CanadianChick does have a right to her own opinion, and no one can take that away from her. I can see why she, and a few others, might not consider Austin as a true legend in the industry, because of who he's worked with in his best matches.

 

CanadianChick, because Austin is my favorite wrestler of all time, I'm not going to bash you. All I just wanted to say is an example of how great Austin could be in a match. If you watch the Survivor Series '96 match with Austin and Bret, you'll notice that Austin begins the match trying to see if he can out-grapple Bret (since Bret was "rusty" coming back, kayfabe wise). It didn't work, so Austin then worked on Bret's upper chest and back, taking the air out of him (because Bret wasn't in "ring shape" like JR said during the match). He did simple things, like stomps, fist-drops, and used his leverage to choke Bret on the ropes to get Bret tired and fatigued early on. Later as the match became more back-and-forth (due to Bret's mat acumen helping him combat Austin), Austin then did the big move spots that we see today, but they made sense in the psychology of the match. He countered a bulldog by shoving Bret chest first into the turnbuckle, hurting his already weakened chest and causing Bret to breathe even harder. He did a top-rope superplex, which again drove the air out of Bret by landing on his back (they even do an excellent replay where Vince yells "whatamaneuver"). Austin also utilizes a bow-and-arrow, in which he clutches Bret's throat and stretches his upper-body out making it hard for Bret to breate. Now, in retrospect, Bret sold these moves excellently, making Austin look that much tougher, but Austin's in-ring acumen is just as deep as Bret Hart's in my opinion. The ending of the match is awesome, showing Austin use the Million Dollar Dream (another move to block air-intake), but Bret used his wits to counter and win. Most idiots who don't appreciate Austin (and I'm not calling you an idiot canadianchick) cite that Austin was "carried" by Bret and by Benoit and Angle in all of his great matches, but in all of the excellent Austin matches, it was basically Austin stealing the show.

 

Oh, and HBK is a good worker, but he's not as good as Austin, Bret, Benoit, or Flair. Bret said he's a good worker but not a great one in his Slam! article in 99 (an article in which he praises Austin as a great wrestler). You don't have to take my word for it, just watch his matches and look for the subversive things that Austin does which makes them great. If he wasn't a great wrestler, then Meltzler wouldn't put him in his 100 greatest wrestlers book (in the top 10 in the WORLD no less).

[Lord of The Curry 0]

I wouldn't use the Top 100 Books as a reference if I were you. The book is purely three Flair smarks jacking off to their hero and is full of more holes then swiss fuckin' cheese.

[Guest The Decadent Slacker]

Fucking Christ, we're off, aren't we? My feeling (disagree if you chose, because i don't care) is that everyone that the net creams over-from Flair to Hart to Michaels to Angle to Benoit-is vastly overrated. Benoit gets all this praise, & while he's an awesome worker, he'll never live up to the hype generated by the IWC (the way he's percieved, he'd carry Andre's corpse to a ten star match). Flair is the best worker in modern history, but he's not the fucking deity that people say he is. That doesn't mean i don't enjoy them, it just means that they can never or will never live up to the hype generated. But that's my opinion. "good worker" means different things to different people, therefore its a matter of opinion. Don't agree, more power to you.

 

Austin is a good worker, not the best ever, but good. He's the guy who made wrestling what it is, & had some awesome matches along the way. He's not a guy I'd rush to see from a workrate standpoint, but he was good. His promos were entertaining & got the fans into it (i disown all Austin micwork post "What?!"). Is the guy on the same level as an Angle or Flair? No. There've been better in almost every aspect, but he's still a good worker. I'd take his stuff over Rock's any day.

[Guest Ray]

Flair is the best worker in modern history

No. Kawada, Tsuruta, Liger, Misawa > Flair

 

And I love Flair.

 

Is the guy (austin) on the same level as an Angle or Flair? No. There've been better in almost every aspect,

Austin and Flair are on the same level.

 

Angle isn't even close to either.

 

Kawada smokes them all.

 

Kawada > Austin = Flair >>>>>>>>>> Angle.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Fucking Christ, we're off, aren't we? My feeling (disagree if you chose, because i don't care) is that everyone that the net creams over-from Flair to Hart to Michaels to Angle to Benoit-is vastly overrated. Benoit gets all this praise, & while he's an awesome worker, he'll never live up to the hype generated by the IWC (the way he's percieved, he'd carry Andre's corpse to a ten star match). Flair is the best worker in modern history, but he's not the fucking deity that people say he is. That doesn't mean i don't enjoy them, it just means that they can never or will never live up to the hype generated. But that's my opinion. "good worker" means different things to different people, therefore its a matter of opinion. Don't agree, more power to you.

 

Austin is a good worker, not the best ever, but good. He's the guy who made wrestling what it is, & had some awesome matches along the way. He's not a guy I'd rush to see from a workrate standpoint, but he was good. His promos were entertaining & got the fans into it (i disown all Austin micwork post "What?!"). Is the guy on the same level as an Angle or Flair? No. There've been better in almost every aspect, but he's still a good worker. I'd take his stuff over Rock's any day.

I can't see this whole "Benoit is overrated" stuff, because the proof is right in front of your eyes. Benoit is one of the only (if not the only) worker who actually lives up to the hype. Flair, Angle, HBK and many others are overrated to shit because you can actually take their matches and body of work apart and find the flaws.

 

I'm waiting for somebody to point out a legit flaw of Benoit as a worker (and his lack of mic skills don't count.)

 

Austin is light years above Angle in every aspect of pro wrestling and he's much better the Flair, too.

[Highland 0]

Austin, Flair and quite a few others are better than Angle, but how long has Angle been wresting? Exactly. Austin and co. each have at least a decade of experience under their belt; Angle will only improve and I don't see his neck injury impeding his ability, it hasn't impeded Benoit. I say wait until Angle's career is over (however long that may be) before we say he sucks compared to the other greats.

I'm a huge Benoit mark, and think he is the greatest worker on today (I don't watch puro so I can't refute Ray's opinion), but Angle falls into that rare and elite category of the total package.

[Ripper 0]

Jim Jackson once averaged 26 points per game in the NBA and was basically unstoppable...one year. He since went on to be traded 10 times and hasn't averaged near that amount again.

 

My point.

 

 

Greatness is judged over a timeframe. Austin, while he was AMAZING in spurts, has longer bouts of mediocrity. Flair, while he does have some mediocre runs, was a AMAZING performer consistantly for well over a decade and a half.

 

With Austin, the ability was always there, but bottomline, due to his gimmick, he spent the better part of his WWE run being a punch/kick/finisher guy. Greatness isn't judged on potential.

 

Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart and Chris Beniot don't have a point in their career where they spent nearly 5 years with mediocre matches. Austin was GOOD to above average in WCW, he was Damn GOOD in his early WWE run. Then it came. I think you can point to just before his title win over Michaels as the point his mediocrity begain. It HONESTLY didn't end until his heel run a few years back (where he was putting on INCREDIBLE matches)

 

You can pick apart anyones career and find weak points, but given the body of work, a case can be made that Austin is not one of the greatest wrestlers to step between the ropes. I certainly don't believe that he can be put in the catagory with the likes of Flair or Hart. Hell, looking over the past 10+ years of Beniots career, you can't really find a run where he was as bad as Austin was in the late 90's. Again, its not that I believe that Austin couldn't do great things and put on great matches, bottomline is that he WASN'T due to his brawling redneck gimmick.

 

So yes, you can have the opinion that Austin isn't one of the greats due to his body of work.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Austin, Flair and quite a few others are better than Angle, but how long has Angle been wresting? Exactly. Austin and co. each have at least a decade of experience under their belt; Angle will only improve and I don't see his neck injury impeding his ability, it hasn't impeded Benoit. I say wait until Angle's career is over (however long that may be) before we say he sucks compared to the other greats.

I'm a huge Benoit mark, and think he is the greatest worker on today (I don't watch puro so I can't refute Ray's opinion), but Angle falls into that rare and elite category of the total package.

As long as Angle is solely employed by WWE he will never be considered one of the greats. The body of work simply isn't there. Oh, and his promo's suck so I can't really call him the total package. Maybe if he stopped bobbing his neck and acting like a fuckin goof he'd be taken seriously.

 

If we were going on an overall set of criteria, Austin would be ranked highly due to his huge influence on the business and the amount of money he drew. Workrate-wise, he doesn't even register in the Top Ten.

[Ripper 0]

Austin, Flair and quite a few others are better than Angle, but how long has Angle been wresting? Exactly. Austin and co. each have at least a decade of experience under their belt; Angle will only improve and I don't see his neck injury impeding his ability, it hasn't impeded Benoit. I say wait until Angle's career is over (however long that may be) before we say he sucks compared to the other greats.

I'm a huge Benoit mark, and think he is the greatest worker on today (I don't watch puro so I can't refute Ray's opinion), but Angle falls into that rare and elite category of the total package.

As long as Angle is solely employed by WWE he will never be considered one of the greats. The body of work simply isn't there. Oh, and his promo's suck so I can't really call him the total package. Maybe if he stopped bobbing his neck and acting like a fuckin goof he'd be taken seriously.

 

If we were going on an overall set of criteria, Austin would be ranked highly due to his huge influence on the business and the amount of money he drew. Workrate-wise, he doesn't even register in the Top Ten.

Actually he can and will be considered a great if he only works there. The American scene only wrestling watchers out number the puro watchers in great numbers actually. Seeing as we are in AMERICA, his body of work in AMERICAN wrestling can and will get him considered one of the greats.