|
Post by Robbymac on Sept 30, 2014 12:58:46 GMT -5
We can agree to disagree then. Ambrose is on no sane planet more over now than Austin was at any point after Wrestlemania 13. Austin 3:16 shirts were already flying off merchandise stands in 1997. WWE Home Video released their first non coliseum produced video about Austin in 1997. I love Ambrose and think he's going places but good grief. Where is the proof of this? All we have is a muted reaction to which you're claiming criteria disqualification. Watch a Raw or PPV from that era and Austin is nowhere near the most over person on the card. Later he became that and now WM13 is a convenient focal point for that but at WM13 he certainly wasn't there. If you can show me any show from that immediacy that shows Austin as the top or top two over person on the show I may concede but I don't think you can, because he wasn't. People view Austin as would be and assume he always was. Austin didn't really start to take off until much later than WM13, maybe even months. But it's the conveinent focal point. If people used the Network to watch shows of that time frame around WM13 they may be surprised at how underwhelming Austin's reactions are compared to what they presume them to have been. It may have been the start but it still had a while to burn after before we saw the fireworks we all now associate with him. Bret was typically getting better heel reactions. Austin was getting top babyface reactions. Out popping Taker and HBK everywhere. You want a show...how about, I dunno, all of them? In Canada the dynamic would shift. Austin was your top heel. My proof is the fact I actually watched Raw every week.
|
|
|
Post by abjordans on Sept 30, 2014 13:01:35 GMT -5
I honestly cannot believe my eyes that people are on here saying Dean Ambrose is more over right now than Steve Austin after WM 13. Did the people that are saying that live through that time period, or did you watch it on Youtube and the Network? If you were a fan in 1997, you laugh at the mere suggestion.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Sept 30, 2014 13:02:39 GMT -5
All of them? I've posted a show and you disqualified it. He was NOT getting top babyface reactions. At WM13 he got at most tweener-heel reaction (which Vince played up like Hogan circa 1988 had just walked in). You're guilty of believing the retrospective, re-written history.
Look at Wm13 itself, the next PPV, the Raw after that, the PPV after that - no way does his reactions compete with the top babyfaces. It's demonstrably not the case.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Sept 30, 2014 13:04:18 GMT -5
I honestly cannot believe my eyes that people are on here saying Dean Ambrose is more over right now than Steve Austin after WM 13. Did the people that are saying that live through that time period, or did you watch it on Youtube and the Network? If you were a fan in 1997, you laugh at the mere suggestion. I'm doing both. I lived through the period and I back it up watching YouTUbe and WWE network. It may feel different now as Austin went onto become what he did and it's been hammered into us for years WM13 was the big moment - but you can actually go back for yourself and see. Austin did not become the top babyface in the company (at least going by crowd reactions) for a long time after.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Sept 30, 2014 13:05:32 GMT -5
All of them? I've posted a show and you disqualified it. He was NOT getting top babyface reactions. At WM13 he got at most tweener-heel reaction (which Vince played up like Hogan circa 1988 had just walked in). You're guilty of believing the retrospective, re-written history. Look at Wm13 itself, the next PPV, the Raw after that, the PPV after that - no way does his reactions compete with the top babyfaces. It's demonstrably not the case. Are you comparing it to other babyfaces or simply watching Austins reactions? Honest question and I really don't want this to be condescending. Are you old enough to remember the era in question vividly or are you simply basing this off old footage?
|
|
spagett
Hank Scorpio
Great Job!
Posts: 5,649
|
Post by spagett on Sept 30, 2014 13:05:49 GMT -5
All of them? I've posted a show and you disqualified it. He was NOT getting top babyface reactions. At WM13 he got at most tweener-heel reaction (which Vince played up like Hogan circa 1988 had just walked in). You're guilty of believing the retrospective, re-written history. Look at Wm13 itself, the next PPV, the Raw after that, the PPV after that - no way does his reactions compete with the top babyfaces. It's demonstrably not the case. Were you watching the WWE back in 1997? Genuine question, not having a go at you. My memories are that Austin started to get top babyface reactions pretty soon after Mania. Certainly by the time of the Owen Hart feud. My mind could be playing tricks though.
|
|
|
Post by abjordans on Sept 30, 2014 13:08:14 GMT -5
There is not the buzz around Dean Ambrose now that there was around Austin at that point in time. Acting as if WM 13 is a manufactured major moment, when in reality it is one of the most organic moments in wrestling history, is crazy. Dean Ambrose would probably say, "Whoah, chill bro" if you presented this to him.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Sept 30, 2014 13:09:17 GMT -5
I honestly cannot believe my eyes that people are on here saying Dean Ambrose is more over right now than Steve Austin after WM 13. Did the people that are saying that live through that time period, or did you watch it on Youtube and the Network? If you were a fan in 1997, you laugh at the mere suggestion. I'm doing both. I lived through the period and I back it up watching YouTUbe and WWE network. It may feel different now as Austin went onto become what he did and it's been hammered into us for years WM13 was the big moment - but you can actually go back for yourself and see. Austin did not become the top babyface in the company (at least going by crowd reactions) for a long time after. Then why was he immediately given main event booking? Closing the April IYH with Bret and then getting a title shot against Taker in May? (in which they protected him by having him lose due to interference from the Harts) If he wasn't one of the top babyfaces (and your use of a plural here indicates there was more than one guy ahead of him on the face side...which is hysterical) then why didn't Taker just beat him clean?
|
|
|
Post by abjordans on Sept 30, 2014 13:10:03 GMT -5
All of them? I've posted a show and you disqualified it. He was NOT getting top babyface reactions. At WM13 he got at most tweener-heel reaction (which Vince played up like Hogan circa 1988 had just walked in). You're guilty of believing the retrospective, re-written history. Look at Wm13 itself, the next PPV, the Raw after that, the PPV after that - no way does his reactions compete with the top babyfaces. It's demonstrably not the case. Were you watching the WWE back in 1997? Genuine question, not having a go at you. My memories are that Austin started to get top babyface reactions pretty soon after Mania. Certainly by the time of the Owen Hart feud. My mind could be playing tricks though. You are correct. By the time of the transition to the Owen feud, it was more than clear that Austin was the biggest star in the company and the future. This began, what, like a month or 2 after WM 13?
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Sept 30, 2014 13:11:01 GMT -5
All of them? I've posted a show and you disqualified it. He was NOT getting top babyface reactions. At WM13 he got at most tweener-heel reaction (which Vince played up like Hogan circa 1988 had just walked in). You're guilty of believing the retrospective, re-written history. Look at Wm13 itself, the next PPV, the Raw after that, the PPV after that - no way does his reactions compete with the top babyfaces. It's demonstrably not the case. Are you comparing it to other babyfaces or simply watching Austins reactions? Honest question and I really don't want this to be condescending. Are you old enough to remember the era in question vividly or are you simply basing this off old footage? Other baby faces. Taker and Shawn were easily more over than him. Easily. It's not really close. I am old enough to remember the era. And watched it. But even if I wasn't anyone can watch these shows and see who got the bigger face reaction of the roster - and Austin wasn't in the top two. If you lived through it they don't broadcast a special soundtrack that lessens the sound compared to what it was. yes Austin became massively over in 1997 as it progressed but no way was he 'top babyface' on the roster/show during this period. Ambrose now is the top babyface on Raw. Just because you can't compre where Ambrose is now to where Austin would later go, doesn't change this.
|
|
|
Post by abjordans on Sept 30, 2014 13:13:49 GMT -5
Are you comparing it to other babyfaces or simply watching Austins reactions? Honest question and I really don't want this to be condescending. Are you old enough to remember the era in question vividly or are you simply basing this off old footage? Other baby faces. Taker and Shawn were easily more over than him. Easily. It's not really close. I am old enough to remember the era. And watched it. But even if I wasn't anyone can watch these shows and see who got the bigger face reaction of the roster - and Austin wasn't in the top two. If you lived through it they don't broadcast a special soundtrack that lessens the sound compared to what it was. yes Austin became massively over in 1997 as it progressed but no way was he 'top babyface' on the roster/show during this period. Ambrose now is the top babyface on Raw. Just because you can't compre where Ambrose is now to where Austin would later go, doesn't change this. This is what makes me question if you were watching. Crowd had been turning on HBK for almost a year at this point and he was on his way to a heel turn.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Sept 30, 2014 13:15:17 GMT -5
Are you comparing it to other babyfaces or simply watching Austins reactions? Honest question and I really don't want this to be condescending. Are you old enough to remember the era in question vividly or are you simply basing this off old footage? Other baby faces. Taker and Shawn were easily more over than him. Easily. It's not really close. I am old enough to remember the era. And watched it. But even if I wasn't anyone can watch these shows and see who got the bigger face reaction of the roster - and Austin wasn't in the top two. If you lived through it they don't broadcast a special soundtrack that lessens the sound compared to what it was. yes Austin became massively over in 1997 as it progressed but no way was he 'top babyface' on the roster/show during this period. Ambrose now is the top babyface on Raw. Just because you can't compre where Ambrose is now to where Austin would later go, doesn't change this. Except for the fact that he wrestled Taker in May and Shawn in June on PPV and the crowd is pretty clearly supporting him in both matches. But hey they were both *ahem* EASILY more popular. El. Oh. El.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Sept 30, 2014 13:15:26 GMT -5
There is not the buzz around Dean Ambrose now that there was around Austin at that point in time. Acting as if WM 13 is a manufactured major moment, when in reality it is one of the most organic moments in wrestling history, is crazy. Dean Ambrose would probably say, "Whoah, chill bro" if you presented this to him. It wasn't organic - another 'WWE truth' fallacy. Really listen to Vince on commentary with Austin at that time. He was selling a reaction that simply wasn't there. The intention to turn Austin into a top babyface had been made long before the fans noticed. He walks out at WM13 to a reasonable response, a mixed-reaction for a heel but he had been going against a gradually heeling Bret so the seeds for a 'double turn' had been well and truly planted. "LISTEN TO THIS REACTION!" McMahon said at the time, or words to that effect, when he walked out at WM13. He got some reaction but McMahon sold it for larger than it was. It shows how well it worked that people actually think it was 'organic'. I think going back an watching these shows/events as we can is a more reliable way of assessing things than through memory heavily influenced by WWE official line. It's been near indoctrination for close to 20 years that Austin blasted off huge after Wm13, I'm not surprised this is how people remember it. I'd say he began to gain traction after WM13, as intended and it really kicked in around Summerslam, maybe bit later, in terms of being THE babyface on the show.
|
|
|
Post by abjordans on Sept 30, 2014 13:17:23 GMT -5
There is not the buzz around Dean Ambrose now that there was around Austin at that point in time. Acting as if WM 13 is a manufactured major moment, when in reality it is one of the most organic moments in wrestling history, is crazy. Dean Ambrose would probably say, "Whoah, chill bro" if you presented this to him. It wasn't organic - another 'WWE truth' fallacy. Really listen to Vince on commentary with Austin at that time. He was selling a reaction that simply wasn't there. The intention to turn Austin into a top babyface had been made long before the fans noticed. He walks out at WM13 to a reasonable response, a mixed-reaction for a heel but he had been going against a gradually heeling Bret so the seeds for a 'double turn' had been well and truly planted. "LISTEN TO THIS REACTION!" McMahon said at the time, or words to that effect, when he walked out at WM13. He got some reaction but McMahon sold it for larger than it was. It shows how well it worked that people actually think it was 'organic'. I think going back an watching these shows/events as we can is a more reliable way of assessing things than through memory heavily influenced by WWE official line. It is not like no one ever rewatched WM 13 until the Network came around. I bought the WM anthology damn near 10 years ago. I think I will just show myself out now, I can't get jiggy to this shit.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Sept 30, 2014 13:17:52 GMT -5
Other baby faces. Taker and Shawn were easily more over than him. Easily. It's not really close. I am old enough to remember the era. And watched it. But even if I wasn't anyone can watch these shows and see who got the bigger face reaction of the roster - and Austin wasn't in the top two. If you lived through it they don't broadcast a special soundtrack that lessens the sound compared to what it was. yes Austin became massively over in 1997 as it progressed but no way was he 'top babyface' on the roster/show during this period. Ambrose now is the top babyface on Raw. Just because you can't compre where Ambrose is now to where Austin would later go, doesn't change this. This is what makes me question if you were watching. Crowd had been turning on HBK for almost a year at this point and he was on his way to a heel turn. Exactly. There might be an argument for a Taker depending on when your cutoff point is on when Austin ascended to the top spot. But literally the day after WM 13 the discussion of who the top face in WWF was began and ended with Undertaker and Austin.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Sept 30, 2014 13:20:17 GMT -5
There is not the buzz around Dean Ambrose now that there was around Austin at that point in time. Acting as if WM 13 is a manufactured major moment, when in reality it is one of the most organic moments in wrestling history, is crazy. Dean Ambrose would probably say, "Whoah, chill bro" if you presented this to him. It wasn't organic - another 'WWE truth' fallacy. Really listen to Vince on commentary with Austin at that time. He was selling a reaction that simply wasn't there. The intention to turn Austin into a top babyface had been made long before the fans noticed. He walks out at WM13 to a reasonable response, a mixed-reaction for a heel but he had been going against a gradually heeling Bret so the seeds for a 'double turn' had been well and truly planted. "LISTEN TO THIS REACTION!" McMahon said at the time, or words to that effect, when he walked out at WM13. He got some reaction but McMahon sold it for larger than it was. It shows how well it worked that people actually think it was 'organic'. I think going back an watching these shows/events as we can is a more reliable way of assessing things than through memory heavily influenced by WWE official line. It's been near indoctrination for close to 20 years that Austin blasted off huge after Wm13, I'm not surprised this is how people remember it Commentary Vince oversold something? STOP THE FREAKING PRESSES!!! Are we talking about going into WM 13 or coming out of it? Going into WM 13 there's at least a discussion to be had. Afterward it's just laughable.
|
|
|
Post by The Tee Why on Sept 30, 2014 13:23:07 GMT -5
Dean Ambrose more over than Stone Cold Steve Austin
you heard it here first.
|
|
|
Post by abjordans on Sept 30, 2014 13:23:29 GMT -5
Listein to Austin's podcast that dropped TODAY. He even says Chicago after that match is one of the biggest reactions he ever got.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Sept 30, 2014 13:23:45 GMT -5
We can agree to disagree then. Ambrose is on no sane planet more over now than Austin was at any point after Wrestlemania 13. Austin 3:16 shirts were already flying off merchandise stands in 1997. WWE Home Video released their first non coliseum produced video about Austin in 1997. I love Ambrose and think he's going places but good grief. Where is the proof of this? All we have is a muted reaction to which you're claiming criteria disqualification. Watch a Raw or PPV from that era and Austin is nowhere near the most over person on the card. Later he became that and now WM13 is a convenient focal point for that but at WM13 he certainly wasn't there. If you can show me any show from that immediacy that shows Austin as the top or top two over person on the show I may concede but I don't think you can, because he wasn't. People view Austin as would be and assume he always was. Austin didn't really start to take off until much later than WM13, maybe even months. But it's the conveinent focal point. If people used the Network to watch shows of that time frame around WM13 they may be surprised at how underwhelming Austin's reactions are compared to what they presume them to have been. It may have been the start but it still had a while to burn after before we saw the fireworks we all now associate with him. www.wwe.com/videos/stone-cold-steve-austin-comes-for-the-hart-foundation-raw-april-28-1997-26022672I recently watched every Raw/PPV from 1997, and Austin was definitely super over. The above clip, which happened just after the double turn at Mania, was the sort of reactions he was getting every week. The idea that he wasn't super popular until much later is crazy to me. Yes, he went to another level of popularity in 98, but he was absolutely one of if not the most popular person on the roster for a majority of 97 as well.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Sept 30, 2014 13:29:02 GMT -5
Watching the main event of Cold Day in Hell right now.
A few observations 1. There was a spot on Raw about two weeks prior in which Austin stuns Taker and the crowd eats it up. Taker responds with a choke slam and that gets a good reaction. Probably 50/50 at that point.
2. Taker gets a bigger "pop" for his entrance which has lights going off, smoke, etc. Austin appears to have a longer sustained reaction and certainly appears to have a larger portion of the crowd cheering for him
3. No question that "Austin 3:16" is the most popular shirt in the crowd.
This is from May 1997 when Taker and HBK were "easily outpopping him"
|
|