|
|
Post by JerryvonKramer on Oct 11, 2009 17:11:35 GMT -5
Flair is a legendary figure in wrestling but he's just not on the level that Hogan and Austin are in terms of importance. I simply can't believe I'm hearing this argument now. As I said in the other thread: This statement is a damning indictment of a shallow age in which fame and money are the only barometers of importance or success. Steve Austin himself will tell you that Flair is more important to wrestling history than he is. I'm in shock. |
|
|
|
Post by "Playboy" Don Douglas on Oct 11, 2009 17:15:06 GMT -5
Flair, easily. Austin was a short term success.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerryvonKramer on Oct 11, 2009 17:17:39 GMT -5
Flair, easily. Austin was a short term success. But look Joey, Austin has a vote already  |
|
|
|
Post by stevieraymark on Oct 11, 2009 17:18:08 GMT -5
Flair by so much it's not even close.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2009 17:19:46 GMT -5
I don't have an answer for this really.
Over a substancial period of time, Flair wins easily.
If we include the overnight and intense success Steve Austin had when he became Stone Cold, then I'd go with him.
This is a much more interesting idea to discuss than Hogan/Flair albeit...I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Youngie on Oct 11, 2009 17:21:28 GMT -5
I'll go with Flair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Youngie on Oct 11, 2009 17:21:51 GMT -5
This is a much more interesting idea to discuss than Hogan/Flair albeit...I don't know. Is that so?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2009 17:23:21 GMT -5
This is a much more interesting idea to discuss than Hogan/Flair albeit...I don't know. Is that so? Hahaha  I mean on the level of mainstream importance vs an entire legacy, what matters more though in case any other poster wondered what I meant. |
|
|
|
Post by JerryvonKramer on Oct 11, 2009 17:25:26 GMT -5
Who are the three people who have voted for Austin, that's what I want to know.
Show yourselves!
|
|
|
|
Post by Youngie on Oct 11, 2009 17:30:32 GMT -5
I mean on the level of mainstream importance vs an entire legacy, what matters more though in case any other poster wondered what I meant. Don't worry. I forgive you. Who are the three people who have voted for Austin, that's what I want to know. Show yourselves! They're too scared to face your wrath! I would be. Check out my Hogan vs. Flair thread. Apparently the word going 'round now is that 'Taker had a bigger impact in wrestling than Flair. |
|
|
|
Post by JerryvonKramer on Oct 11, 2009 17:34:27 GMT -5
I've already seen this. I don't want to scare anyone. I'm actually interested as to why these folk think the things they do.
With Hogan, yes, fair enough, there's a clear case and it's not hard to make it.
With this one though, I actually can't even see the case for Austin. Which is why I'm so baffled. It's 4-4 now too.
|
|
repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,050
|
Post by repomark on Oct 11, 2009 17:37:29 GMT -5
Both were important.
Obviously Flair is and was hugely influential - he has paved the way for a number of stars who site him as one of their main reasons for getting into the business in the first place. Triple H, Shawn Michaels and the Texas Rattlesnake himself all sited Ric Flair as an influence - but the list is endless. He had a wonderful career and unquestionably more longevity than Austin.
However, Austin can also be sited as being a majorly important star in the history of the business. During wrestling's boom period of the late 90's he was one of - if not THE- reason for the WWF's mainstream success. The argument can be made that whilst Hulk Hogan, the Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin became household names during their time on top of the wrestling industry both to your diehard wrestling fans, your casual wrestling fans and even the public at large, Flair is only really a household name to wrestling fans.
Austin's importance could also be that his character's impact is one of - if not the - turning point in the "Monday Night Wars". It can be argued that the Austin character and his feud with Vince McMahon is the single greatest wrestling angle of all time and the main reason why WWE still exists and not WCW. Whether that makes him more important or not in the history of wrestling is open for debate - but certainly he cannot be ignored as a huge chapter in the history of the business - even if his tenure on top was much shorter than Flair's.
It is a close call in my view. I voted Austin just because I had to vote for someone and I always was an Austin mark - maybe not the best reason but given I can make logical arguments for either to be more important to the business its as good a reason as any. Plus I believe Flair will almost certainly win the poll.
|
|
Professor Chaos
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bringer of Destruction and Maker of Doom
Posts: 16,332
|
Post by Professor Chaos on Oct 11, 2009 17:39:53 GMT -5
Austin for me, he was my all time favorite and arguably saved Vince from bankruptcy. Flair always bored me. Had Flair not stuck around like 15 years too long then I might have a better memory of him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Youngie on Oct 11, 2009 17:40:14 GMT -5
Couldn't it be argued that without Vince McMahon Austin would be nothing much and would not be important at all? Whereas Flair made himself important with no ones help.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerryvonKramer on Oct 11, 2009 17:40:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by "Playboy" Don Douglas on Oct 11, 2009 17:41:41 GMT -5
My problem with Austin leading this is simply that while his success was obviously on a very large scale, it ended very quickly. He wasn't a top guy long enough to be in the same class as Flair.
Well, that's one problem.
Just to pose a quick question, as I've got some things to do that will probably keep me away for a little bit: The Ultimate Warrior was a big success for a short amount of time as well. Is anyone going to argue that Warrior is more important to the history of the business than Flair?
|
|
|
|
Post by hajimenoippo on Oct 11, 2009 17:43:20 GMT -5
Ultimate Warrior has far more fans and is one of the most memorable freaks in pro wrestling so...
|
|
|
|
Post by "Playboy" Don Douglas on Oct 11, 2009 17:43:42 GMT -5
Austin for me, he was my all time favorite and arguably saved Vince from bankruptcy. Flair always bored me. Had Flair not stuck around like 15 years too long then I might have a better memory of him. Ah, but if this kind of argument didn't fly in the Flair/Hogan topic, it's not going to fly here. Ultimate Warrior has far more fans and is one of the most memorable freaks in pro wrestling so... I will argue the first part of that statement to the death. |
|
repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,050
|
Post by repomark on Oct 11, 2009 17:46:11 GMT -5
Couldn't it be argued that without Vince McMahon Austin would be nothing much and would not be important at all? Whereas Flair made himself important with no ones help. Not really - Flair still needed to be booked as the World Champion and to look good before he could "be the man". I do not think it is fair to say that Flair did it all by himself where as Austin was all down to the booker. |
|
|
|
Post by hajimenoippo on Oct 11, 2009 17:52:13 GMT -5
Couldn't it be argued that without Vince McMahon Austin would be nothing much and would not be important at all? Whereas Flair made himself important with no ones help. Actually Flair had all the help in the world from the Crocketts |
|
8 now!
