Slayer Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 His actual birth name was Steve Anderson? He could've been the fourth Anderson! Arn and Steve Anderson, Minnesota Wrecking Crew III (I'm not counting the lame masked team)
tommytomlin Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 Anybody who uses the 'Austin destroys the Alliance' example is an idiot. That argument was only relevant during the time from that RAW until the Invasion PPV, when Austin was revealed to be in cahoots with the Alliance. He took them all out because THEY LET HIM. I can't believe people still use that as an example.
Jobber of the Week Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 I dunno about anybody else, but I got tired of Austin around the time he came back and started wrecking matches to stunner people. I knew they were building up a story there with a confrontation from Mick, but couldn't they have waited for the match to end then let Austin give a Stunner to the winner? So many matches were made to look unimportant at that time because Austin was running in and mugging for the camera.
SamoaRowe Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 I dunno about anybody else, but I got tired of Austin around the time he came back and started wrecking matches to stunner people. That really bugged me too and Austin lost most of his overness with me over that. He gained a lot of it back while he was the heel champ from about April until he started burying the Alliance. I don't really hold him at fault for that, but I haven't enjoyed his presence on tv since the summer of 2001. I'm not jumping on any bandwagon, I just haven't enjoyed his work. Plain and simple.
J. Hungerford Smith Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 Anybody who uses the 'Austin destroys the Alliance' example is an idiot. That argument was only relevant during the time from that RAW until the Invasion PPV, when Austin was revealed to be in cahoots with the Alliance. He took them all out because THEY LET HIM. I can't believe people still use that as an example. Agreed. And even if he wouldn't have joined them, I think it was better that that happened anyways. That was the point of the show, to have him run in and whoop all ass and solidify his spot on the WWF side. Vince needed the "OLD" Austin to return, and the old Austin rampaged people with Stunners and chairs.
Guest mattitude V1 Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 Not sure what you're getting at there JOTW, but if you want to talk about making money with someone, you forgot Vince. By the way, hows that Goldberg boycott going? did 1 inch punch get a new name
Guest RollingSambos Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 Are you guys crazy? Austin sells his ass off. When I think of no-sellers, I think of guys like Hawk, Taker, Goldberg, Kane...not Austin. If anything, Austin sells TOO MUCH considering his rep as "the toughest S.O.B. in the WWF". And what the hell do you call him getting his ass handed to him by Batista?
Just call me Dan Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 Or Kane? I think it more of people being upset at WHO he is selling for and not so much that "he never does it". I have to agree there, but blaming Austin for WHO he sells for is ludicrous.
Guest Ray Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 Or Kane? I should have mentioned that. Kane got a lot of heat from that Austin beat down. Austin allowed Kane to no-sell a STUNNER. If I recall, that segment got a high rating as well...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now