|
Post by stevieraymark on Oct 13, 2009 17:22:34 GMT -5
Judging by the standards in this thread, That would mean David Beckham is the most important player in football history because noone's sold more shirts than him, or been as big a mainstream star as him. Ridiculous. Nice work. I liked this anology even though I disagree with it lol. I would say Austin is more Zinedene Zidane, Hogan is Pele and Flair is Eusabio. Eusabio was a great player - highly regarded to those who know about football/soccer but not that well known to the youngsters nowadays. Pele is a player that most of the youngsters have heard of because he was held in even higher regard and more world renound. Zidane was an excellent player and still fresh in the youngsters memory - but no one is really sure if he was as good as Pele and never will be. Fewer ask if he was as good as Eusabio though - even though in terms of raw skill and flair Eusabio was probably better. I have expanded this metaphor too far to the point where I am not even sure it still makes sense lol. In terms of the David Beckham thing - not really a comparison. In a competitive sport like football it is largely about your successes on the pitch in terms of how many trophys you won and how many goals you score or whatever. In wrestling it is and was more about putting butts on seats and selling ppvs. David Beckham would have never got a game if he was not a good footballer - it just so happens he became incredibly marketable as well which was a bonus. I believe Jose Mourinio (spelling?) who refused to sign him for Chelsea though because, and I quote, "We want footballers here, not movie stars." Where as a player having charisma and marketability can be a nice bonus in terms of replica shirt sales in football, it can also be an unwelcome distraction when their pop star wife doesn't want to live in Manchester. It is also not essential for them to be a success - I mean Wayne Rooney has zero charisma but he is a great footballer. In wrestling it is absolutely essential for any wrestler to be a success to the level of an Austin, a Flair or a Hogan for them to have charisma and be marketable. It is the bread and butter of the wrestling industry, so its not really a fair comparison I am afraid however much I liked it. Tremendous post, The Eusebio and Flair comparison is perfect. BTW i do think Beckham is a good footballer its just that at no point in time was he ever among the worlds best.
|
|
|
Post by JerryvonKramer on Oct 13, 2009 17:32:47 GMT -5
Judging by the standards in this thread, That would mean David Beckham is the most important player in football history because noone's sold more shirts than him, or been as big a mainstream star as him. Ridiculous. Nice work. I liked this anology even though I disagree with it lol. I would say Austin is more Zinedene Zidane, Hogan is Pele and Flair is Eusabio. If we're getting down to it, I'd say: Flair = Paolo Maldini Austin = someone like Ronaldo (fat Ronaldo) Hogan = Pele, or, if we want to keep it modern, Maradonna And yes, Maldini is a defender, Flair is a heel, Pele and Ronaldo were both strikers, Austin and Hogan were both faces. I think that's something being overlooked to be honest.
|
|
repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by repomark on Oct 13, 2009 17:44:17 GMT -5
Nice work. I liked this anology even though I disagree with it lol. I would say Austin is more Zinedene Zidane, Hogan is Pele and Flair is Eusabio. If we're getting down to it, I'd say: Flair = Paolo Maldini Austin = someone like Ronaldo (fat Ronaldo) Hogan = Pele, or, if we want to keep it modern, Maradonna And yes, Maldini is a defender, Flair is a heel, Pele and Ronaldo were both strikers, Austin and Hogan were both faces. I think that's something being overlooked to be honest. Does this mean all defenders are heels and all strikers faces? This metaphor is confusing me now as I always though Paulo Maldini was quite a nice guy but I think most people in England would say Maradonna was very much a heel although admittedly in Scotand he was a babyface in some circles....
|
|
|
Post by hajimenoippo on Oct 13, 2009 17:48:46 GMT -5
Man, the last post sinched it for me. Flair. I know Austin drew in alot of fans from 97-03 but Flair is still doing it all over the world 4 decades after he started I'm really happy for you, and imma let you finish, but Stone Cold steve austin is the greatest of all time
|
|
|
Post by JerryvonKramer on Oct 13, 2009 17:51:40 GMT -5
If we're getting down to it, I'd say: Flair = Paolo Maldini Austin = someone like Ronaldo (fat Ronaldo) Hogan = Pele, or, if we want to keep it modern, Maradonna And yes, Maldini is a defender, Flair is a heel, Pele and Ronaldo were both strikers, Austin and Hogan were both faces. I think that's something being overlooked to be honest. Does this mean all defenders are heels and all strikers faces? This metaphor is confusing me now as I always though Paulo Maldini was quite a nice guy but I think most people in England would say Maradonna was very much a heel although admittedly in Scotand he was a babyface in some circles.... I didn't think of that. I was thinking more that heels usually end up losing/ defenders concede goals, whereas faces are in the business of scoring goals/ winning and selling t-shirts. The reason I used Maldini is because he's probably got the biggest trophy cabinet going and played till he was 40, probably a few years more than he should have, and is a total legend to those "in the know" but probably not a name non-footy fans will know. --------- Anyway, whatever analogies we use, I'm having a very hard time accepting that Austin's 3 or 4 years feuding with Vince are more important to wrestling history than Ric Flair's entire career. I mean seriously, it's like saying Vanilla Ice was more important to rap than Chuck D. "Well Vanilla Ice sold more records and more t-shirts and made hip-hop more mainstream", sure he did.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 13, 2009 18:13:28 GMT -5
Does this mean all defenders are heels and all strikers faces? This metaphor is confusing me now as I always though Paulo Maldini was quite a nice guy but I think most people in England would say Maradonna was very much a heel although admittedly in Scotand he was a babyface in some circles.... I didn't think of that. I was thinking more that heels usually end up losing/ defenders concede goals, whereas faces are in the business of scoring goals/ winning and selling t-shirts. The reason I used Maldini is because he's probably got the biggest trophy cabinet going and played till he was 40, probably a few years more than he should have, and is a total legend to those "in the know" but probably not a name non-footy fans will know. --------- Anyway, whatever analogies we use, I'm having a very hard time accepting that Austin's 3 or 4 years feuding with Vince are more important to wrestling history than Ric Flair's entire career. I mean seriously, it's like saying Vanilla Ice was more important to rap than Chuck D. "Well Vanilla Ice sold more records and more t-shirts and made hip-hop more mainstream", sure he did. Jerry, the crux of your defense as to "Why Flair is better than...." is by contrasting two people from a different genre and saying "These are comparable to these" But they're not, you're cherry picking examples of people to prove your point, and its a pretty weak defense in my opinion. You'll have to except that more people think Austin was a bigger deal than Flair, and when we're dealing with a matter of opinion that has really no quantitative way to determine who IS better/more important to the industry then you really need to go with popular vote, which STRONGLY favors Austin on this board. Perhaps if you polled another hundred people they'd choose Flair over Austin and have reasons to back it up... But as far as your opinion on Flair over Austin you are in the minority by a longshot.
|
|
|
Post by JerryvonKramer on Oct 13, 2009 18:36:28 GMT -5
You don't think historical importance is quantifiable then? The question asks about historical importance: not who you think was the "bigger deal", who made more money, or anything else.
Do you think there's a case for Koko B. Ware being more important to wrestling history than Flair? Does anyone? I think it is quantifiable.
What we haven't done is define what "wrestling history" means. For example, in kayfabe terms there is absolutely no doubt that Flair is more important than Austin because of the title reigns. It's easier to wipe 10 years from the record books than 30+ years.
In terms of impact, which is where the Austin argument has focused itself no one can deny that Austin had a massive impact in 96/7. Or that he was a massive draw in 98/9. I don't object to that. What I object to is the argument that totally overlooks Flair's considerable achievements in the 80s and judges him mainly on his position in the roster during the WCW's NWO-dominated days.
How is that fair to Flair?
And in any case, is history just about "impact"? Flair helped to define not just a company and a generation of wrestlers, but an ethos, a type of working, what it meant to be a traveling champ, etc. etc.
And this is what it comes down to in the end: do you think that the Attitude era, the era that Austin defines, is more important to the history of wrestling than the history of the NWA? Judging by the poll, I'm guessing the answer for those who've voted is "yes", cos Stone Cold said so. Lou Thesz eat your heart out.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 13, 2009 18:54:29 GMT -5
You don't think historical importance is quantifiable then? The question asks about historical importance: not who you think was the "bigger deal", who made more money, or anything else. Do you think there's a case for Koko B. Ware being more important to wrestling history than Flair? Does anyone? I think it is quantifiable. What we haven't done is define what "wrestling history" means. For example, in kayfabe terms there is absolutely no doubt that Flair is more important than Austin because of the title reigns. It's easier to wipe 10 years from the record books than 30+ years. In terms of impact, which is where the Austin argument has focused itself no one can deny that Austin had a massive impact in 96/7. Or that he was a massive draw in 98/9. I don't object to that. What I object to is the argument that totally overlooks Flair's considerable achievements in the 80s and judges him mainly on his position in the roster during the WCW's NWO-dominated days. How is that fair to Flair? And in any case, is history just about "impact"? Flair helped to define not just a company and a generation of wrestlers, but an ethos, a type of working, what it meant to be a traveling champ, etc. etc. And this is what it comes down to in the end: do you think that the Attitude era, the era that Austin defines, is more important to the history of wrestling than the history of the NWA? Judging by the poll, I'm guessing the answer for those who've voted is "yes", cos Stone Cold said so. Lou Thesz eat your heart out. The initial problem with the case you pose for Flair is you take two totally different examples and put them together to make your point... like the whole Flair v Hogan = Dylan v Elvis... I could say Flair v Hogan = Tim McGraw v The Beatles.. you cant just make up two examples and use it to "prove" anything. And of course historical significance is important... but theres no calculation to measure it, theres no grading scale. If you ask ME whos more important to wrestling Steve Austin or Lou Thesz its Steve Austin by a country mile. The type of wrestling from Thesz day doesnt even bare a great resemblence to the showmanship era of today. Thesz got booked to win a bunch of titles and fans cheered for winners and guys who werent foreigners from countries the US didnt like. Maybe people DONT remember Flair's prime, maybe people rate Austin higher because they didnt watch wrestling UNTIL Austin came around, face the numbers here there where a HELL of a lot more people watching pro wrestling when Austin was hitting his stride than before, he brought in an entire new fan base, and during that time if you were new to the *sport Flair was an old hack who had some forgettable matches and spent 4 minutes a week talking to Gene Okerlund. Does that define Flair? No, but if we're being honest here you need to admit people didnt flock to watch wrestling in the millions like they did when Austin showed up when Flair was in his prime... Flair didnt change the industry, he made it better, but he was far from a revolutionary figure. Austin changed the industry and he in my humble opinion is the reason RAW is still on Monday nights.
|
|
|
Post by JerryvonKramer on Oct 13, 2009 19:04:50 GMT -5
he in my humble opinion is the reason RAW is still on Monday nights. I'm not entirely convinced that's a good thing I can see the argument. I can. But how far do you take that whole "if it wasn't for..." thing? I mean if it wasn't for Flair would we have had the Monday Night Wars? Would Crockett have been able to expand to the point where Turner came in and bought JCP? Did Flair not create the conditions necessary for WCW? Also, do you think the Attitude era would have happened anyway? With DX, Montreal, and then The Rock? And with the NWO over on WCW -- is that not "Attitude" enough? How much did it need Austin? Wouldn't Rock have drawn vs. someone else anyway? There is also a smart vs. mark thing going on here too. The Austin argument, just as the Hogan one is from an overwhelming "smart" point of view. All about money, merchandising and sales. Is wrestling history really just a history of attendance figures and TV ratings? Or is it a history of what happened on-screen and in the ring? Or is it a mixture of both?
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 13, 2009 20:00:07 GMT -5
Honestly what is so surreal about the Attitude Era in 20/20 hindsight is that it can be argued that The Rock in the end was a bigger household name than Austin is among mainstream America concerning Attitude Era wrestlers.
|
|
|
Post by "Nature Boy" Ric Moranis on Oct 13, 2009 21:33:49 GMT -5
I'll give you Austin being a bigger star for those five years he was at his peak.
However, Austin's Stone Cold character was already getting stale, and already failing to be a draw for anything other than nostalgia pops by the time he got out of WWE. It took Flair 20+ years to get that stale. Austin was that stale after six years. Austin was a fad. Flair was pretty timeless. Could've you imagine if Stone Cold would've never left WWE and was still around today? Without a major character overhaul, he'd be as lame and boring as 1995 Hogan.
In Flair's defense, I could bring up facts like Flair main evented in front of the biggest crowd in wrestling history (over 170,000 vs. Inoki in Korea), or drew one of the highest paid indoor houses in wrestling history (upto that point) at "Starrcade '83: A Flair For the Gold". Not to mention thousands of great promos and matches from the 1970s-through 1990s.
But barely any of Flair's success happened in WWF, especially during The Attitude Era, so I guess none of it counts. I think it's hilarious that somebody at the level of "Mr. Perfect" is considered an "all-time great" on here, yet so many hate on Flair. Hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by skiller on Oct 13, 2009 21:40:15 GMT -5
Ric Flair defined a company.
But Steve Austin defined a whole era.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 13, 2009 21:50:58 GMT -5
Ric Flair defined a company. But Steve Austin defined a whole era. Um Flair defined an era also. Of course Flair in his prime did not have the perks of mainstream media technology such as tons of pay per views per year or live shows on primetime. Everyone thinks the Stone Cold character is tough but I think someone like Bruiser Brody had a tougher character and he did not have to use profanity or vulgarity(although once again producers back then could not allow profanity like Stone Cold used on programming)
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 13, 2009 21:57:36 GMT -5
I'll give you Austin being a bigger star for those five years he was at his peak. However, Austin's Stone Cold character was already getting stale, and already failing to be a draw for anything other than nostalgia pops by the time he got out of WWE. It took Flair 20+ years to get that stale. Austin was that stale after six years. Austin was a fad. Flair was pretty timeless. Could've you imagine if Stone Cold would've never left WWE and was still around today? Without a major character overhaul, he'd be as lame and boring as 1995 Hogan. In Flair's defense, I could bring up facts like Flair main evented in front of the biggest crowd in wrestling history (over 170,000 vs. Inoki in Korea), or drew one of the highest paid indoor houses in wrestling history (upto that point) at "Starrcade '83: A Flair For the Gold". Not to mention thousands of great promos and matches from the 1970s-through 1990s. But barely any of Flair's success happened in WWF, especially during The Attitude Era, so I guess none of it counts. I think it's hilarious that somebody at the level of "Mr. Perfect" is considered an "all-time great" on here, yet so many hate on Flair. Hilarious. Austin was also in the era where he was on TV for 12+ PPVS a year and by 99 on 9 total show a month, thats going to drain a character no matter who you are. Flair had the benefit in his earlier years of being on one program and traveling sporadically into different terratories.. thats going to keep a guy fresh, just like it did Harley Race before him. You had local NWA subsets where the loudmouth rich-boy champion was going to come in and take on your local hero... Flair was outstanding in the role, but it was added heat that almost anybody could have attained to a certain degree. Theres not a lot of hating on Flair here, just a lot of people with realistic opinions who think Flair is great but not as much a driving force in wrestling history as Austin.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 13, 2009 22:03:39 GMT -5
he in my humble opinion is the reason RAW is still on Monday nights. I'm not entirely convinced that's a good thing I can see the argument. I can. But how far do you take that whole "if it wasn't for..." thing? I mean if it wasn't for Flair would we have had the Monday Night Wars? Would Crockett have been able to expand to the point where Turner came in and bought JCP? Did Flair not create the conditions necessary for WCW? Also, do you think the Attitude era would have happened anyway? With DX, Montreal, and then The Rock? And with the NWO over on WCW -- is that not "Attitude" enough? How much did it need Austin? Wouldn't Rock have drawn vs. someone else anyway? There is also a smart vs. mark thing going on here too. The Austin argument, just as the Hogan one is from an overwhelming "smart" point of view. All about money, merchandising and sales. Is wrestling history really just a history of attendance figures and TV ratings? Or is it a history of what happened on-screen and in the ring? Or is it a mixture of both? You can make the assumption that Flair helped keep JCP going until the promotion got bankrupt and ran into the ground to the point they HAD to sell the company to Turner... through no fault of Flair's just rampant mismanagment and poor decision making. I'll also give it to Flair that he had a lot less to work with. The guys at the time in the WWF were creating a perfect storm of characters, guys who were all coming into their own as solid main eventers that people would pay to see... For every Dusty Rhodes Ric Flair had there were a handful of Ronny Garvins, JYDs and Ricky Mortons that Flair had to try to convince the wrestling world at large were contenders when in reality they didnt deserve a sniff at the top of the card. As for the Attitude Era without Austin? I dont think it works.. who beats Shawn Michaels at WM 14? And who else would win that title at THAT PPV and have the ratings switch over for the first time in over a year and a half? I think its inarguable that nobody could fill that role but Austin.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 13, 2009 22:05:06 GMT -5
I'll give you Austin being a bigger star for those five years he was at his peak. However, Austin's Stone Cold character was already getting stale, and already failing to be a draw for anything other than nostalgia pops by the time he got out of WWE. It took Flair 20+ years to get that stale. Austin was that stale after six years. Austin was a fad. Flair was pretty timeless. Could've you imagine if Stone Cold would've never left WWE and was still around today? Without a major character overhaul, he'd be as lame and boring as 1995 Hogan. In Flair's defense, I could bring up facts like Flair main evented in front of the biggest crowd in wrestling history (over 170,000 vs. Inoki in Korea), or drew one of the highest paid indoor houses in wrestling history (upto that point) at "Starrcade '83: A Flair For the Gold". Not to mention thousands of great promos and matches from the 1970s-through 1990s. But barely any of Flair's success happened in WWF, especially during The Attitude Era, so I guess none of it counts. I think it's hilarious that somebody at the level of "Mr. Perfect" is considered an "all-time great" on here, yet so many hate on Flair. Hilarious. Austin was also in the era where he was on TV for 12+ PPVS a year and by 99 on 9 total show a month, thats going to drain a character no matter who you are. Flair had the benefit in his earlier years of being on one program and traveling sporadically into different terratories.. thats going to keep a guy fresh, just like it did Harley Race before him. You had local NWA subsets where the loudmouth rich-boy champion was going to come in and take on your local hero... Flair was outstanding in the role, but it was added heat that almost anybody could have attained to a certain degree. Theres not a lot of hating on Flair here, just a lot of people with realistic opinions who think Flair is great but not as much a driving force in wrestling history as Austin. When you define "driving force" in wrestling history what do you necesarially mean or define it as? Because when I look at todays WWE product I really don't see any "Attitude" by far anymore. If anything todays pro wrestling looks like it has been influenced by the move to less powerful muscular monster type wrestlers and more of a 220-230 pound range of wrestlers who are very agile and can do fancy high flying moves but obviously lack charisma. Frankly, I just don't see Stone Colds mark stamped on wrestling right now. In fact I could make a premise and argument that in the longrun that WCW's push of the newly found cruiserweight division and influx of Mexican and Japanese style wrestling has left more of a mark today than Austin has.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 13, 2009 22:09:25 GMT -5
I'm not entirely convinced that's a good thing I can see the argument. I can. But how far do you take that whole "if it wasn't for..." thing? I mean if it wasn't for Flair would we have had the Monday Night Wars? Would Crockett have been able to expand to the point where Turner came in and bought JCP? Did Flair not create the conditions necessary for WCW? Also, do you think the Attitude era would have happened anyway? With DX, Montreal, and then The Rock? And with the NWO over on WCW -- is that not "Attitude" enough? How much did it need Austin? Wouldn't Rock have drawn vs. someone else anyway? There is also a smart vs. mark thing going on here too. The Austin argument, just as the Hogan one is from an overwhelming "smart" point of view. All about money, merchandising and sales. Is wrestling history really just a history of attendance figures and TV ratings? Or is it a history of what happened on-screen and in the ring? Or is it a mixture of both? You can make the assumption that Flair helped keep JCP going until the promotion got bankrupt and ran into the ground to the point they HAD to sell the company to Turner... through no fault of Flair's just rampant mismanagment and poor decision making. I'll also give it to Flair that he had a lot less to work with. The guys at the time in the WWF were creating a perfect storm of characters, guys who were all coming into their own as solid main eventers that people would pay to see... For every Dusty Rhodes Ric Flair had there were a handful of Ronny Garvins, JYDs and Ricky Mortons that Flair had to try to convince the wrestling world at large were contenders when in reality they didnt deserve a sniff at the top of the card. As for the Attitude Era without Austin? I dont think it works.. who beats Shawn Michaels at WM 14? And who else would win that title at THAT PPV and have the ratings switch over for the first time in over a year and a half? I think its inarguable that nobody could fill that role but Austin. That's funny because it seemed to me that the Junkyard Dog had a decent run in the WWE not to mention that JYD was a popular wrestler already in the mid-southern type NWA territories even before he came to the WWE. And Ricky Morton was a very talented wrestler. The Rock in Roll Express fueds with the Midnight Express are classics. Now Ronnie Garvin I can see your point.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 13, 2009 22:09:54 GMT -5
Austin was also in the era where he was on TV for 12+ PPVS a year and by 99 on 9 total show a month, thats going to drain a character no matter who you are. Flair had the benefit in his earlier years of being on one program and traveling sporadically into different terratories.. thats going to keep a guy fresh, just like it did Harley Race before him. You had local NWA subsets where the loudmouth rich-boy champion was going to come in and take on your local hero... Flair was outstanding in the role, but it was added heat that almost anybody could have attained to a certain degree. Theres not a lot of hating on Flair here, just a lot of people with realistic opinions who think Flair is great but not as much a driving force in wrestling history as Austin. When you define "driving force" in wrestling history what do you necesarially mean or define it as? Because when I look at todays WWE product I really don't see any "Attitude" by far anymore. If anything todays pro wrestling looks like it has been influenced by the move to less powerful muscular monster type wrestlers and more of a 220-230 pound range of wrestlers who are very agile and can do fancy high flying moves but obviously lack charisma. Frankly, I just don't see Stone Colds mark stamped on wrestling right now. In fact I could make a premise and argument that in the longrun that WCW's push of the newly found cruiserweight division and influx of Mexican and Japanese style wrestling has left more of a mark today than Austin has. Austin's STAMP on what RAW is today is the simple fact RAW exists and that WWE exists at all. Even Vince would admit the company was going down the crapper and borderline bankrupt in 96 and a 2 years later they made almost a half a billion dollars... certainly theres other factors that go into that but I think Austin was the strongest oar steering that boat at that time and by a long shot. Todays WWE product is created by the WWE, guys taught to wrestle a simular style, use ridiculous looking spinning zero impact moves and be bland as can be on the mic. They're trained by the WWE.. the fact the ratings have been nearly cut in half from RAWs heyday to the garbage now is indicitive that they didnt stick with a simular formula.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 13, 2009 22:12:43 GMT -5
You can make the assumption that Flair helped keep JCP going until the promotion got bankrupt and ran into the ground to the point they HAD to sell the company to Turner... through no fault of Flair's just rampant mismanagment and poor decision making. I'll also give it to Flair that he had a lot less to work with. The guys at the time in the WWF were creating a perfect storm of characters, guys who were all coming into their own as solid main eventers that people would pay to see... For every Dusty Rhodes Ric Flair had there were a handful of Ronny Garvins, JYDs and Ricky Mortons that Flair had to try to convince the wrestling world at large were contenders when in reality they didnt deserve a sniff at the top of the card. As for the Attitude Era without Austin? I dont think it works.. who beats Shawn Michaels at WM 14? And who else would win that title at THAT PPV and have the ratings switch over for the first time in over a year and a half? I think its inarguable that nobody could fill that role but Austin. That's funny because it seemed to me that the Junkyard Dog had a decent run in the WWE not to mention that JYD was a popular wrestler already in the mid-southern type NWA territories even before he came to the WWE. And Ricky Morton was a very talented wrestler. The Rock in Roll Express fueds with the Midnight Express are classics. Now Ronnie Garvin I can see your point. Yeah if it was 1985 JYD v Flair would be great... But it was 5 years later and JYD was 350 pounds, incapable of moving and had dwindled big time in popularity in the WWF and floundered in the NWA. Ricky Morton was a pencil thin tag team wrestler that Flair made look like a legit contender.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 13, 2009 22:18:51 GMT -5
When you define "driving force" in wrestling history what do you necesarially mean or define it as? Because when I look at todays WWE product I really don't see any "Attitude" by far anymore. If anything todays pro wrestling looks like it has been influenced by the move to less powerful muscular monster type wrestlers and more of a 220-230 pound range of wrestlers who are very agile and can do fancy high flying moves but obviously lack charisma. Frankly, I just don't see Stone Colds mark stamped on wrestling right now. In fact I could make a premise and argument that in the longrun that WCW's push of the newly found cruiserweight division and influx of Mexican and Japanese style wrestling has left more of a mark today than Austin has. Austin's STAMP on what RAW is today is the simple fact RAW exists and that WWE exists at all. Even Vince would admit the company was going down the crapper and borderline bankrupt in 96 and a 2 years later they made almost a half a billion dollars... certainly theres other factors that go into that but I think Austin was the strongest oar steering that boat at that time and by a long shot. Todays WWE product is created by the WWE, guys taught to wrestle a simular style, use ridiculous looking spinning zero impact moves and be bland as can be on the mic. They're trained by the WWE.. the fact the ratings have been nearly cut in half from RAWs heyday to the garbage now is indicitive that they didnt stick with a simular formula. I think what was the main catalyst that saved the WWE was the media frenzy behind Mike Tysons appearance back in January 1998 I believe. I firmly believe that Tysons confrontation with Austin is what hooked and introduced a lot of the 18-35 male demographics to the WWE and yes Austin did play a great role in the confrontation. And I do agree no mega Austin popularity and we may be watching Nitro today assuming Time Warner had a change of heart. I think the Attitude Era had its great moments as well as Austin but I think the WWE put everything into the basket at the time that today the WWE just cannot do anything original anymore and the lack of competition doesn't help either.
|
|