Jul 22, 2020 8:22:07 GMT Strobe said:

On a recent Between the Sheets podcast, the guest (some wrestler/promoter whose name is escaping me and I can't be arsed looking it up) made the suggestion of Taker's supernaturalness being exposed during the Corporate Ministry time as Vince the promoter helping him do it, which could have been an interesting way to go. Taker always being one of Vince's pets/creations and him hoodwinking even the other wrestlers into believing in the powers of this man.

This strikes me as really clever idea, but only in theory. To actually do it almost gets into Russo territory of some stuff is real, but other parts aren't, which always sucks and the audience tends to reject it. I don't think the payoff being, "Vince told the lighting guy to turn off the lights on Taker's behalf," is ever going to be well received as the the reveal. But it is an interesting idea to think about in a meta sense.

Jul 22, 2020 21:16:27 GMT Kilgore said:

Jul 22, 2020 8:22:07 GMT Strobe said:

On a recent Between the Sheets podcast, the guest (some wrestler/promoter whose name is escaping me and I can't be arsed looking it up) made the suggestion of Taker's supernaturalness being exposed during the Corporate Ministry time as Vince the promoter helping him do it, which could have been an interesting way to go. Taker always being one of Vince's pets/creations and him hoodwinking even the other wrestlers into believing in the powers of this man.

This strikes me as really clever idea, but only in theory. To actually do it almost gets into Russo territory of some stuff is real, but other parts aren't, which always sucks and the audience tends to reject it. I don't think the payoff being, "Vince told the lighting guy to turn off the lights on Taker's behalf," is ever going to be well received as the the reveal. But it is an interesting idea to think about in a meta sense.

I completely get where you are coming from. But the funny thing is that it really should be less kayfabe-shattering.

This guy has legit magic powers but never uses them in a match and actually loses to people without magic powers is fine.

This guy is a top wrestler and uses illusion and trickery with the aid of the promoter is not.

Yet I think you are right and fans would reject it.

Jul 22, 2020 8:22:07 GMT Strobe said:

Mike Awesome had debuted as Gladiator in FMW by September 1990. Let's bring super green Mike Awesome in. So we've got a Gladiator, a couple of Greek Gods, a Viking, a Conan-style Barbarian and... what was Warlord's look really? Terminator meets Phantom of the Opera?

What else could we have? A Hun? A Spartan? Volkoff can become a Mongol again? A Carthaginian called Hannibal who rides to the ring on an elephant?

Shame we would just be a little too late to do a Ghostbusters II tie-in and have The Carpathian be the mastermind of it all.

Not gonna lie. This would have drawn so many Baker dimes. 

Poaching Ron Simmons from WCW to use him as Roman Gladiator Faarooq is a must. 

I can't decide which fabulous Strobe idea I like more- Vigo The Carpathian in early 90s WWF or an entire realm of Undertakers. Both are fantastic.

Jul 22, 2020 18:13:39 GMT rad said:

Baker can suck a fart for not liking Head Cheese. Steve Blackman, the Chuck Norris of wrestling paired with Al Snow, the poor man's Jim Carey of wrestling into one glorious and underrated tour de force; what's not to love, Baker-man?

Blackman was boring and Snow wasn't funny 

I forgot Steve Blackman existed until just now. Even his entrance music was boring!

Edit: The absolute lack of Steve Blackman love here baffles me.

I can personally deal with wrestlers who lack personality on the mic; loved Lance Storm, Dean Malenko, etc. etc. Not saying Blackman was on their level whatsoever but I wouldn't describe him as "boring"... dude did karate, flung nun-chunks and made Shane McMahon fly. NOT boring.

Jul 22, 2020 19:37:16 GMT 🤯 said:

Jul 22, 2020 8:22:07 GMT Strobe said:

Don't know if I'd put it above, but I can absolutely see Brock/Taker I on the level of Foley/Taker (and better than HHH/Foley), which actually hasn't got the best rep in some parts. I think it works as one of the truly great spectacle matches because what they do fits the characters and their history adds to it. Brock/Taker II, no way.

I'm still bothered by this. Have you seen Brock/Taker HIAC 2? It's just barely behind their first one, IMO. Felt like the epic and fitting conclusion not not just their 2010s issue but their overall rivalry since 2002 too.

=====

I'll throw another unpopular opinion, bad take, and/or disconnect out there...
Even post-2007, I still stand by this: Pivoting Benoit into that WHC triple threat with HHH & HBK and having Brock drop the belt to Eddie was the absolutely wrong way to go. We absolutely should've had Brock/Benoit II closing WMXX with Benoit making Brock tap to not only win the title but send Brock packing. It doesn't even matter what else you do to sort the rest of the WMXX card out... it still would've been better. Whether you throw Eddie into the triple threat with HHH & HBK, run HHH vs. HBK "ONE LAST TIME!", or whatever. Bob Holly getting a PPV title shot at Brock wasn't as bad of an offense. Save Eddie's crowning moment for some point later on.

Hate to shit on all of my favorite user's opinions again, but... Brock/Taker II sucked. It's the benchmark for me of when cell matches really started to lose their appeal. The first one is absolutely a classic though and I can see why anyone would put it near the top. I still prefer Foley/Taker because of the significance and holy shit moments, but that's just me. The inaugural HBK/Taker Badd Blood contest deserves all the praise it gets. Still the best cell match imo. 

Definitely agree that Benoit/Lesnar would have been better. I love Eddie, totally deserved that win, and the Benoit/HBK/HHH triple threat match is probably the greatest triple threat ever... but it would have been just as good if not better with Eddie put in that role and then we still would have got the same finish, just different title wins that make more sense booking-wise. HBK/HHH alone is not something I would have wanted to see though, even on a Mania stage, it had been done to death up to that point and probably did need an outside force. Strictly HBK vs. Eddie would have also been a great route to go, if not the better one altogether. 

...Wait a minute, Hardcore Holly had a PPV title shot against Lesnar? I don't remember that at all.

Jul 23, 2020 19:51:32 GMT @aaron said:

I forgot Steve Blackman existed until just now. Even his entrance music was boring!

Dude that's the BEST part.

Count me in as someone who really dug Steve Blackman's entrance music and even his glow stick twirling TitanTron video.

This feels like a bit of a disconnect, but outside of one major spot (getting back up after the big boot and then spinning and falling again comically) and a more minor one (spin and forward roll after being knocked outside), Shawn Michaels' selling in the Hogan match at SummerSlam 2005 was pretty par for the course for him as a heel. He was often a ludicrous overseller, like Hennig in the Mr. Perfect role, and it is something that does mark him down a bit for me. It is just too much at times.

And it isn't like he only did it against guys the size of Diesel or Taker. He'd do crazy overbumping for Marty Jannetty in 1993.

Jul 23, 2020 21:11:30 GMT rad said:

...Wait a minute, Hardcore Holly had a PPV title shot against Lesnar? I don't remember that at all.

Royal Rumble 2004 when Holly returned from the broken neck after sandbagging Brock on a powerbomb.

Yeah and if I'm remembering it right, was like 7 minutes and mostly a bearhug.

Jul 29, 2020 19:28:31 GMT @ness said:

Yeah and if I'm remembering it right, was like 7 minutes and mostly a bearhug.

Honestly I think the most offensive part that people had a problem with was the disconnect between the buildup and match itself.

Holly came back a raging bad ass and had Brock actually running scared. Then, instead of their match being a fast intense brawl... It's rest hold jobfest. Dafuq? Either Brock shouldn't have sold Holly's return like that, or the match should've been booked differently.

Or, realistically, Brock/Holly should've just been blown off as a SD! main event.

Jul 30, 2020 23:39:14 GMT 🤯 said:

Jul 29, 2020 19:28:31 GMT @ness said:

Yeah and if I'm remembering it right, was like 7 minutes and mostly a bearhug.

Honestly I think the most offensive part that people had a problem with was the disconnect between the buildup and match itself.

Holly came back a raging bad ass and had Brock actually running scared. Then, instead of their match being a fast intense brawl... It's rest hold jobfest. Dafuq? Either Brock shouldn't have sold Holly's return like that, or the match should've been booked differently.

Or, realistically, Brock/Holly should've just been blown off as a SD! main event.

I think everyone can agree that booking being our pet peeves. Let's build it as a blood feud/revenge affair, but the PPV match starts with a collar/elbow.

Jul 31, 2020 0:53:17 GMT @ness said:

Jul 30, 2020 23:39:14 GMT 🤯 said:

Honestly I think the most offensive part that people had a problem with was the disconnect between the buildup and match itself.

Holly came back a raging bad ass and had Brock actually running scared. Then, instead of their match being a fast intense brawl... It's rest hold jobfest. Dafuq? Either Brock shouldn't have sold Holly's return like that, or the match should've been booked differently.

Or, realistically, Brock/Holly should've just been blown off as a SD! main event.

I think everyone can agree that booking being our pet peeves. Let's build it as a blood feud/revenge affair, but the PPV match starts with a collar/elbow.

Would've loved if Holly had just said "fuck the title", opened with a Brock-disabling nut punt, then just tried to return the favor by attempting to break Brock's neck with a Pillmanizer. Story of the match-turned-segment becomes can Brock escape with his life!?

Jul 31, 2020 2:19:39 GMT 🤯 said:

Jul 31, 2020 0:53:17 GMT @ness said:

I think everyone can agree that booking being our pet peeves. Let's build it as a blood feud/revenge affair, but the PPV match starts with a collar/elbow.

Would've loved if Holly had just said "fuck the title", opened with a Brock-disabling nut punt, then just tried to return the favor by attempting to break Brock's neck with a Pillmanizer. Story of the match-turned-segment becomes can Brock escape with his life!?

I was just booking it in my head just now, thinking Holly tries to murder Brock and it's a non-finish leading to a possible SD! main event where Brock retains BUT then I remember the same show had the other belt in a LMS and a non-finish so that's probably another issue. HHH just ruined everything Brock related that year, robbing us of the Benoit match too.

Jul 31, 2020 2:22:41 GMT @ness said:

Jul 31, 2020 2:19:39 GMT 🤯 said:

Would've loved if Holly had just said "fuck the title", opened with a Brock-disabling nut punt, then just tried to return the favor by attempting to break Brock's neck with a Pillmanizer. Story of the match-turned-segment becomes can Brock escape with his life!?

I was just booking it in my head just now, thinking Holly tries to murder Brock and it's a non-finish leading to a possible SD! main event where Brock retains BUT then I remember the same show had the other belt in a LMS and a non-finish so that's probably another issue. HHH just ruined everything Brock related that year, robbing us of the Benoit match too.

Good point. At the rate he was going, might as well just have forced a pivot to HHH/Brock at WMXX with diehard loyalist HHH chasing NFL-loving turncoat Brock outta his beloved WWE.

Jul 31, 2020 2:28:36 GMT 🤯 said:

Jul 31, 2020 2:22:41 GMT @ness said:

I was just booking it in my head just now, thinking Holly tries to murder Brock and it's a non-finish leading to a possible SD! main event where Brock retains BUT then I remember the same show had the other belt in a LMS and a non-finish so that's probably another issue. HHH just ruined everything Brock related that year, robbing us of the Benoit match too.

Good point. At the rate he was going, might as well just have forced a pivot to HHH/Brock at WMXX with diehard loyalist HHH chasing NFL-loving turncoat Brock outta his beloved WWE.

Only roadblock is what to do with Eddy instead. I mean, I *guess* ship him to Raw in Benoit's place and then do the Holly match proper @ NWO and then book Mania like it was looking with the Brock/Benoit match. Even though I quite liked HHH never really getting his win over Eddy, but I wonder if his personality would work on Raw or not. Then again his presence was a big part of the latino market on UPN.

This is why I can't with the rebooking.

I saw Steve Blackman with his family in Atlantic City. He was watching two ladies play roulette. He was just standing behind them. I bitched out of going to say hi to him, but we made eye contact. He knew I knew who he was, but I didn't want to bother him at a casino. Bad ass looking mofo.

My unpopular opinion is that Christian fucking sucks.

Jul 31, 2020 2:38:24 GMT @ness said:

Jul 31, 2020 2:28:36 GMT 🤯 said:

Good point. At the rate he was going, might as well just have forced a pivot to HHH/Brock at WMXX with diehard loyalist HHH chasing NFL-loving turncoat Brock outta his beloved WWE.

Only roadblock is what to do with Eddy instead. I mean, I *guess* ship him to Raw in Benoit's place and then do the Holly match proper @ NWO and then book Mania like it was looking with the Brock/Benoit match. Even though I quite liked HHH never really getting his win over Eddy, but I wonder if his personality would work on Raw or not. Then again his presence was a big part of the latino market on UPN.

This is why I can't with the rebooking.

I mean, if we totally want to fuck up WMXX, we could go all out with some RAW vs. SD! shit...

=====

Winner Becomes Undisputed Champion, Loser Leaves WWE... FOREVER!
RAW's World Heavyweight Champion Triple H vs. SD!'s WWE Champion Brock Lesnar

---

ROCK/GOLDBERG II:
(w/ special guest referee Stone Cold Steve Austin)
RAW's Bill Goldberg vs. SD!'s The Rock

---

Return of the Deadman:
RAW's unmasked Kane vs. SD!'s undead Undertaker (w/ Paul Bearer)

---

WrestleMania 21 Dream Match... ONE YEAR EARLIER!
RAW's Shawn Michaels vs. SD!'s Kurt Angle

---

Playboy Bra & Panties Tag Team Match:
RAW's Stacy Keibler & Jackie Gayda vs. SD!'s Torrie Wilson & Sable

---

Midcard Title Unification Match:
RAW's Intercontinental Champion Randy Orton vs. SD!'s United States Champion John Cena
(perhaps featuring some costly outside interference from a vengeful Mick Foley?!)

---

Man vs. Woman:
RAW's Women's Champion Victoria vs. SD!'s Cruiserweight Champion Chavo Guerrero Jr. (w/ Chavo Guerrero Sr.)

---

Tag Title Unification Match:
RAW's Rob Van Dam & Booker T vs. SD!'s Eddie Guerrero & Chris Benoit

---

Table Elimination Match:
RAW's Dudleyz (Bubba Ray, D-Von & Spike) vs. SD!'s Yakuza (Tajiri, Akio & Sakoda)

---

Money in the Bank... ONE YEAR EARLIER!
RAW's Chris Jericho (w/ Trish Stratus), RAW's Christian, and RAW's Ric Flair (w/ Batista) vs. SD!'s Rey Mysterio, SD!'s Big Show, and SD!'s Shelton Benjamin (w/ Charlie Haas)

Jul 23, 2020 21:11:30 GMT rad said:

Edit: The absolute lack of Steve Blackman love here baffles me.

I can personally deal with wrestlers who lack personality on the mic; loved Lance Storm, Dean Malenko, etc. etc. Not saying Blackman was on their level whatsoever but I wouldn't describe him as "boring"... dude did karate, flung nun-chunks and made Shane McMahon fly. NOT boring.

Jul 22, 2020 19:37:16 GMT 🤯 said:

I'm still bothered by this. Have you seen Brock/Taker HIAC 2? It's just barely behind their first one, IMO. Felt like the epic and fitting conclusion not not just their 2010s issue but their overall rivalry since 2002 too.

=====

I'll throw another unpopular opinion, bad take, and/or disconnect out there...
Even post-2007, I still stand by this: Pivoting Benoit into that WHC triple threat with HHH & HBK and having Brock drop the belt to Eddie was the absolutely wrong way to go. We absolutely should've had Brock/Benoit II closing WMXX with Benoit making Brock tap to not only win the title but send Brock packing. It doesn't even matter what else you do to sort the rest of the WMXX card out... it still would've been better. Whether you throw Eddie into the triple threat with HHH & HBK, run HHH vs. HBK "ONE LAST TIME!", or whatever. Bob Holly getting a PPV title shot at Brock wasn't as bad of an offense. Save Eddie's crowning moment for some point later on.

Hate to shit on all of my favorite user's opinions again, but... Brock/Taker II sucked. It's the benchmark for me of when cell matches really started to lose their appeal. The first one is absolutely a classic though and I can see why anyone would put it near the top. I still prefer Foley/Taker because of the significance and holy shit moments, but that's just me. The inaugural HBK/Taker Badd Blood contest deserves all the praise it gets. Still the best cell match imo. 

Definitely agree that Benoit/Lesnar would have been better. I love Eddie, totally deserved that win, and the Benoit/HBK/HHH triple threat match is probably the greatest triple threat ever... but it would have been just as good if not better with Eddie put in that role and then we still would have got the same finish, just different title wins that make more sense booking-wise. HBK/HHH alone is not something I would have wanted to see though, even on a Mania stage, it had been done to death up to that point and probably did need an outside force. Strictly HBK vs. Eddie would have also been a great route to go, if not the better one altogether. 

...Wait a minute, Hardcore Holly had a PPV title shot against Lesnar? I don't remember that at all.

Yes, it was at the 2004 Royal Rumble. Decent match, but it got cut short (06:30) because Hunter & HBK needed more time for there

match which lasted 22:46.

As mentioned in another thread I’ve been watching the entirety of 98 in order and in full and whilst I could make a thread of its own about my criticisms of the time, the mis conceptions about how good people were at certain things etc there’s one I just have to get out there..

Stone Cold Steve Austin is not a good worker after his change in style after the neck injury. I get he was a brawler, I get he was popular, I get all those elements. But if you watch his matches they lack selling slot of the time, especially for his opponents who he constantly picks up and doesn’t allow them to sell, he very often cuts off his opponents offence and starts chewing them up and spitting them out, Foley especially was on the receiving end of a lot of it.

It’s just not good wrestling at all, devoid of psychology and a lot of the time lacking any basis of logic. I was always an Austin guy and I didn’t have much love for the Rock but watching this now at 31 years of age, The Rock at 26/27 is streets ahead of Austin at 33.

Aug 6, 2020 14:55:58 GMT Peepshow said:

As mentioned in another thread I’ve been watching the entirety of 98 in order and in full and whilst I could make a thread of its own about my criticisms of the time, the mis conceptions about how good people were at certain things etc there’s one I just have to get out there..

Stone Cold Steve Austin is not a good worker after his change in style after the neck injury. I get he was a brawler, I get he was popular, I get all those elements. But if you watch his matches they lack selling slot of the time, especially for his opponents who he constantly picks up and doesn’t allow them to sell, he very often cuts off his opponents offence and starts chewing them up and spitting them out, Foley especially was on the receiving end of a lot of it.

It’s just not good wrestling at all, devoid of psychology and a lot of the time lacking any basis of logic. I was always an Austin guy and I didn’t have much love for the Rock but watching this now at 31 years of age, The Rock at 26/27 is streets ahead of Austin at 33.

I mean, there's probably a reason Austin doesn't have any/many great singles matches (vs. moments) between WM13 and WMX7. I'm thinking his faults were more ego driven to protect and enhance his position and character than anything else. Also, surely he was pretty banged up from the busted neck and knees. But I'm assuming that was a secondary factor.

A hobbled Shawn, Foley, and HHH pulled the best work out of Austin IMO in the interim... But don't doubt if they all either gave too much (like Foley and HHH) or didn't give their best (like Shawn).

I'll be curious to hear if Austin's 2001 ring work holds up differently.

It's very difficult to judge guys in that era because the WWF booked everything to be a schmozz every week. Austin had some really good work with Benoit and Angle after the heel turn when WWF toned it down a bit, but the matches were secondary to everything in those days. How many great straight-up wrestling matches were there in the WWF during the wars? You have to have to think long and hard.

Aug 6, 2020 19:37:54 GMT Todd said:

It's very difficult to judge guys in that era because the WWF booked everything to be a schmozz every week. Austin had some really good work with Benoit and Angle after the heel turn when WWF toned it down a bit, but the matches were secondary to everything in those days. How many great straight-up wrestling matches were there in the WWF during the wars? You have to have to think long and hard.

This is such an interesting question, but I think maybe it applies more to the Austin Era than the war years since the war years spanned late 95 through early 98 and there were good matches in those years it seemed thanks to Bret, Shawn, Owen, pre-neck injury Austin, Taker (at least once he got motivated by Foley), HHH, Bulldog, etc.

But once we're technically in the Austin Era, boy... It does feel sparse. First match that jumps to mind is HHH/Cactus at Royal Rumble 2000... which is technically during an Austin Era hiatus.

You're right. I'm thinking of the Austin era after Mania 14.

But I'm talking about straight up wrestling matches. No bells and whistles. It's very difficult to think of a great match pre-Invasion that was just a straight up wrestling match.

Aug 6, 2020 22:27:29 GMT Todd said:

You're right. I'm thinking of the Austin era after Mania 14.

But I'm talking about straight up wrestling matches. No bells and whistles. It's very difficult to think of a great match pre-Invasion that was just a straight up wrestling match.

Whoa. You're going all the way up to the start of the InVasion? Hmmm... I'd have to think. Austin/Benoit, Benoit/Kurt at WMX7, Benoit/Rock at Fully Loaded 2000... Pretty much anything Benoit did on PPV, I guess?

Still pretty sure Austin/Dude Love had an amazing PPV match.

Granted it had shenanigans out the ASS, but I recall it being awesome.

Wrestling yeah probably not.

Aug 6, 2020 14:55:58 GMT Peepshow said:

As mentioned in another thread I’ve been watching the entirety of 98 in order and in full and whilst I could make a thread of its own about my criticisms of the time, the mis conceptions about how good people were at certain things etc there’s one I just have to get out there..

Stone Cold Steve Austin is not a good worker after his change in style after the neck injury. I get he was a brawler, I get he was popular, I get all those elements. But if you watch his matches they lack selling slot of the time, especially for his opponents who he constantly picks up and doesn’t allow them to sell, he very often cuts off his opponents offence and starts chewing them up and spitting them out, Foley especially was on the receiving end of a lot of it.

It’s just not good wrestling at all, devoid of psychology and a lot of the time lacking any basis of logic. I was always an Austin guy and I didn’t have much love for the Rock but watching this now at 31 years of age, The Rock at 26/27 is streets ahead of Austin at 33.

I find this short-sighted in the sense that while it was true Austin had a bad year in the ring in 1998, to then say he was "not a good worker" from the neck injury on is totally false. I mean, yes, if you're watching 1998 matches, this might seem true, but his work in 1999 and 2001 make this a ridiculous statement. Then to also act like the stuff before the neck injury doesn't count? If 27 year old Rock is better than 33 year old Austin, what about 31/32 year old Austin the two years before? What about 29 year old Austin having a great series against Steamboat? What about 27 year old Austin having a great series Barry Windham? It just seems like you're picking an extremely narrow window to make that statement.

---
March 2016 I binged Austin's career (3/16 Month!), and there was no doubt that Austin was a diminished wrestler after the Owen Driver. I had his Top 2 matches being from 1997 (WM13, Canadian Stampede) earlier that year, with a match from the end of 1996 at #5 (Survivor Series). He was peaking as a character and worker going into SummerSlam '97 and then the neck injury happened, he comes back late '97 and his work in '98 is not good, as you're seeing right now.

His match against Dude Love at Over the Edge was his only flat out great match in 1998. I had the SummerSlam match against 'Taker solid at B-, it was shaping up into something great before the concussion, but then it never got into the final gear, and that might be his second best match of the year. I had his Survivor Series '98 match against Mankind at a C+ and the Kane Raw rematch at a not good C. The Triple Threat match against Undertaker and Kane at Breakdown was bad, and the match against just Taker at Rock Bottom might have been even worse. So yes, 1998 was not good.

Austin rebounded nicely as a worker in '99, though. Austin vs. McMahon (St. Valentine's Day Massacre), Austin vs. Rock (WM15) and Austin vs. Triple H (No Mercy) all in the B range, the Triple Threat SummerSlam match and Fully Loaded Undertaker match just below that quality in the B- range. This is a strong year, then you throw in the WM rematch against Rock at Backlash, which might be in Austin's Top 15 of best matches ever, and this a borderline great year, especially in the context of 1999 where being in the B range and above for most of a year that produced very few great matches puts him in a lot of the best matches of the year.

2000 is pretty much a lost year, then 2001 Austin went into god mode as a worker (vs. Rock at WM17, Two Man Power Trip vs. Jericho/Benoit on Raw, vs. Triple H at No Way Out, vs. Benoit on Smackdown, vs. Angle at Summerslam), and then also really solid work on top of that (vs. Angle/RVD No Mercy, vs. Angle on Raw in January, Unforgiven and Raw in October, and vs. Benoit/Jericho at KOTR). By October his body seems done again, though, so this was his last great run, but it is definitely a great run.

I think 1998 was just a transition year for Austin, not only coming off an injury (which in retrospect, it's truly insane he showed up on Raw the day after the neck injury, and was wrestling again by November), but also wrestling as a babyface for the first time in his career. It took him a while to adjust, but by early '99 he figured it out until his body fell apart again. 2001 is super interesting because he had two of the best matches of his career as a babyface early in the year, and then his return to heel had him going even higher to another level in quality. Austin was a great worker in 2001, as a babyface, as a heel, his work was great. Then his body fell apart again, which is the story of his post-neck injury career.

Aug 7, 2020 0:49:57 GMT Kilgore said:

Aug 6, 2020 14:55:58 GMT Peepshow said:

As mentioned in another thread I’ve been watching the entirety of 98 in order and in full and whilst I could make a thread of its own about my criticisms of the time, the mis conceptions about how good people were at certain things etc there’s one I just have to get out there..

Stone Cold Steve Austin is not a good worker after his change in style after the neck injury. I get he was a brawler, I get he was popular, I get all those elements. But if you watch his matches they lack selling slot of the time, especially for his opponents who he constantly picks up and doesn’t allow them to sell, he very often cuts off his opponents offence and starts chewing them up and spitting them out, Foley especially was on the receiving end of a lot of it.

It’s just not good wrestling at all, devoid of psychology and a lot of the time lacking any basis of logic. I was always an Austin guy and I didn’t have much love for the Rock but watching this now at 31 years of age, The Rock at 26/27 is streets ahead of Austin at 33.

I find this short-sighted in the sense that while it was true Austin had a bad year in the ring in 1998, to then say he was "not a good worker" from the neck injury on is totally false. I mean, yes, if you're watching 1998 matches, this might seem true, but his work in 1999 and 2001 make this a ridiculous statement. Then to also act like the stuff before the neck injury doesn't count? If 27 year old Rock is better than 33 year old Austin, what about 31/32 year old Austin the two years before? What about 29 year old Austin having a great series against Steamboat? What about 27 year old Austin having a great series Barry Windham? It just seems like you're picking an extremely narrow window to make that statement.

---
March 2016 I binged Austin's career (3/16 Month!), and there was no doubt that Austin was a diminished wrestler after the Owen Driver. I had his Top 2 matches being from 1997 (WM13, Canadian Stampede) earlier that year, with a match from the end of 1996 at #5 (Survivor Series). He was peaking as a character and worker going into SummerSlam '97 and then the neck injury happened, he comes back late '97 and his work in '98 is not good, as you're seeing right now.

His match against Dude Love at Over the Edge was his only flat out great match in 1998. I had the SummerSlam match against 'Taker solid at B-, it was shaping up into something great before the concussion, but then it never got into the final gear, and that might be his second best match of the year. I had his Survivor Series '98 match against Mankind at a C+ and the Kane Raw rematch at a not good C. The Triple Threat match against Undertaker and Kane at Breakdown was bad, and the match against just Taker at Rock Bottom might have been even worse. So yes, 1998 was not good.

Austin rebounded nicely as a worker in '99, though. Austin vs. McMahon (St. Valentine's Day Massacre), Austin vs. Rock (WM15) and Austin vs. Triple H (No Mercy) all in the B range, the Triple Threat SummerSlam match and Fully Loaded Undertaker match just below that quality in the B- range. This is a strong year, then you throw in the WM rematch against Rock at Backlash, which might be in Austin's Top 15 of best matches ever, and this a borderline great year, especially in the context of 1999 where being in the B range and above for most of a year that produced very few great matches puts him in a lot of the best matches of the year.

2000 is pretty much a lost year, then 2001 Austin went into god mode as a worker (vs. Rock at WM17, Two Man Power Trip vs. Jericho/Benoit on Raw, vs. Triple H at No Way Out, vs. Benoit on Smackdown, vs. Angle at Summerslam), and then also really solid work on top of that (vs. Angle/RVD No Mercy, vs. Angle on Raw in January, Unforgiven and Raw in October, and vs. Benoit/Jericho at KOTR). By October his body seems done again, though, so this was his last great run, but it is definitely a great run.

I think 1998 was just a transition year for Austin, not only coming off an injury (which in retrospect, it's truly insane he showed up on Raw the day after the neck injury, and was wrestling again by November), but also wrestling as a babyface for the first time in his career. It took him a while to adjust, but by early '99 he figured it out until his body fell apart again. 2001 is super interesting because he had two of the best matches of his career as a babyface early in the year, and then his return to heel had him going even higher to another level in quality. Austin was a great worker in 2001, as a babyface, as a heel, his work was great. Then his body fell apart again, which is the story of his post-neck injury career.

I feel like I got caught up in the nitpicky literalism, and limited my view too narrowly to only singles matches contested with no gimmicks nor gaga schmoz finishes. So I ruled out the Dude matches for instance and the Vince cage.

Shame on me though for forgetting Three Stages of Hell. Also, Austin had an epic RAW main event against Kurt in late 2000 or perhaps the first show of 2001 that hardcore ruled up until HHH ruined the finish.

Aug 7, 2020 2:11:33 GMT 🤯 said:

Aug 7, 2020 0:49:57 GMT Kilgore said:

I find this short-sighted in the sense that while it was true Austin had a bad year in the ring in 1998, to then say he was "not a good worker" from the neck injury on is totally false. I mean, yes, if you're watching 1998 matches, this might seem true, but his work in 1999 and 2001 make this a ridiculous statement. Then to also act like the stuff before the neck injury doesn't count? If 27 year old Rock is better than 33 year old Austin, what about 31/32 year old Austin the two years before? What about 29 year old Austin having a great series against Steamboat? What about 27 year old Austin having a great series Barry Windham? It just seems like you're picking an extremely narrow window to make that statement.

---
March 2016 I binged Austin's career (3/16 Month!), and there was no doubt that Austin was a diminished wrestler after the Owen Driver. I had his Top 2 matches being from 1997 (WM13, Canadian Stampede) earlier that year, with a match from the end of 1996 at #5 (Survivor Series). He was peaking as a character and worker going into SummerSlam '97 and then the neck injury happened, he comes back late '97 and his work in '98 is not good, as you're seeing right now.

His match against Dude Love at Over the Edge was his only flat out great match in 1998. I had the SummerSlam match against 'Taker solid at B-, it was shaping up into something great before the concussion, but then it never got into the final gear, and that might be his second best match of the year. I had his Survivor Series '98 match against Mankind at a C+ and the Kane Raw rematch at a not good C. The Triple Threat match against Undertaker and Kane at Breakdown was bad, and the match against just Taker at Rock Bottom might have been even worse. So yes, 1998 was not good.

Austin rebounded nicely as a worker in '99, though. Austin vs. McMahon (St. Valentine's Day Massacre), Austin vs. Rock (WM15) and Austin vs. Triple H (No Mercy) all in the B range, the Triple Threat SummerSlam match and Fully Loaded Undertaker match just below that quality in the B- range. This is a strong year, then you throw in the WM rematch against Rock at Backlash, which might be in Austin's Top 15 of best matches ever, and this a borderline great year, especially in the context of 1999 where being in the B range and above for most of a year that produced very few great matches puts him in a lot of the best matches of the year.

2000 is pretty much a lost year, then 2001 Austin went into god mode as a worker (vs. Rock at WM17, Two Man Power Trip vs. Jericho/Benoit on Raw, vs. Triple H at No Way Out, vs. Benoit on Smackdown, vs. Angle at Summerslam), and then also really solid work on top of that (vs. Angle/RVD No Mercy, vs. Angle on Raw in January, Unforgiven and Raw in October, and vs. Benoit/Jericho at KOTR). By October his body seems done again, though, so this was his last great run, but it is definitely a great run.

I think 1998 was just a transition year for Austin, not only coming off an injury (which in retrospect, it's truly insane he showed up on Raw the day after the neck injury, and was wrestling again by November), but also wrestling as a babyface for the first time in his career. It took him a while to adjust, but by early '99 he figured it out until his body fell apart again. 2001 is super interesting because he had two of the best matches of his career as a babyface early in the year, and then his return to heel had him going even higher to another level in quality. Austin was a great worker in 2001, as a babyface, as a heel, his work was great. Then his body fell apart again, which is the story of his post-neck injury career.

I feel like I got caught up in the nitpicky literalism, and limited my view too narrowly to only singles matches contested with no gimmicks nor gaga schmoz finishes. So I ruled out the Dude matches for instance and the Vince cage.

Shame on me though for forgetting Three Stages of Hell. Also, Austin had an epic RAW main event against Kurt in late 2000 or perhaps the first show of 2001 that hardcore ruled up until HHH ruined the finish.

I rated an Austin vs. Angle on Raw (January 8, 2001) pretty high, so that's probably it, but I must admit I have no memory of what this match was. Burned my brain out watching like 70 Austin matches that month. 

Aug 7, 2020 0:49:57 GMT Kilgore said:

Aug 6, 2020 14:55:58 GMT Peepshow said:

As mentioned in another thread I’ve been watching the entirety of 98 in order and in full and whilst I could make a thread of its own about my criticisms of the time, the mis conceptions about how good people were at certain things etc there’s one I just have to get out there..

Stone Cold Steve Austin is not a good worker after his change in style after the neck injury. I get he was a brawler, I get he was popular, I get all those elements. But if you watch his matches they lack selling slot of the time, especially for his opponents who he constantly picks up and doesn’t allow them to sell, he very often cuts off his opponents offence and starts chewing them up and spitting them out, Foley especially was on the receiving end of a lot of it.

It’s just not good wrestling at all, devoid of psychology and a lot of the time lacking any basis of logic. I was always an Austin guy and I didn’t have much love for the Rock but watching this now at 31 years of age, The Rock at 26/27 is streets ahead of Austin at 33.

I find this short-sighted in the sense that while it was true Austin had a bad year in the ring in 1998, to then say he was "not a good worker" from the neck injury on is totally false. I mean, yes, if you're watching 1998 matches, this might seem true, but his work in 1999 and 2001 make this a ridiculous statement. Then to also act like the stuff before the neck injury doesn't count? If 27 year old Rock is better than 33 year old Austin, what about 31/32 year old Austin the two years before? What about 29 year old Austin having a great series against Steamboat? What about 27 year old Austin having a great series Barry Windham? It just seems like you're picking an extremely narrow window to make that statement.

---
March 2016 I binged Austin's career (3/16 Month!), and there was no doubt that Austin was a diminished wrestler after the Owen Driver. I had his Top 2 matches being from 1997 (WM13, Canadian Stampede) earlier that year, with a match from the end of 1996 at #5 (Survivor Series). He was peaking as a character and worker going into SummerSlam '97 and then the neck injury happened, he comes back late '97 and his work in '98 is not good, as you're seeing right now.

His match against Dude Love at Over the Edge was his only flat out great match in 1998. I had the SummerSlam match against 'Taker solid at B-, it was shaping up into something great before the concussion.

I should put some context onto what I’m watching, I started at Mania 14 and I’m at Breakdown, so it’s a 6 month window into this, I actually remember 99 being a good year for Austin but these 6 months have been terrible.

I think Austin takes liberties with people beneath him like Foley and then backs off when he’s with someone who can push back, Taker, Shamrock on Raw not too long back.

My original post was probably too much a sweeping statement to be true but this 6 month window and I guess a more accurate description would be Austin’s first title reign was not a good one. Storylines are not logical as they try and try to keep Taker a baby yet he’s aligned with Vince but isn’t but is but isn’t, his biggest foe is Vince who cant wrestle, Foley can’t get a foothold as a top heel, Kane is massively mis handled and made Takers heater. So maybe Austin felt he needed to be super superior to everyone to carry the ship.