|
Post by "Nature Boy" Ric Moranis on Oct 13, 2009 22:20:38 GMT -5
This Austin "defined an era" stuff doesn't really hold water.
What people (and usually people who only listen to WWE's version of history) fail to realize is that wrestling was far more popular nationwide in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, up until the mid-1980s than it was in The Attitude Era.
Was the merchandising as strong in those territory periods? No. Was there as much mainstream media attention paid? No. Were the TV ratings as good? Yeah. Especially in local markets. Was attendance as high? No, but WWE and WCW would only go to towns once or twice a year. Wrestling attendance was far higher nationally during the territory era than it was in The Attitude Era. People like Meltzer have figures to back that up.
Flair was a huge deal to a lot of people as a travelling NWA world champion in the 1980s. Younger fans act like territories were on the level of indy promotions or ROH. They weren't.
The territories drew tons of fans. Current ROH and old ECW were basically successful territories, but didn't come close to the crowds that Flair would draw when he came in as champ. He could draw 7,000 in Memphis, 12,000 in Dallas, 10,000 in The Meadowlands (running opposition to McMahon), 11,000 in Greensboro, 15,000 in New Orleans. Even lesser territories like Continental (Alabama) drew bigger regular crowds than places like ROH, and built their hottest cards around when they could get Flair for dates up until 87 or so when Crockett stopped sending him out.
I hate how people act like Flair's nothing because they compare him to Attitude Era Austin. Austin was great, but he was the right guy in the right place at the right time when Vince McMahon caught lighting in a bottle ONCE (basically by stealing ideas from ECW and early NWO WCW).
Apples and Oranges. Saying Austin is more important than Flair based on the Attitude Era is like saying Tobey Maguire is a more important actor than Robert DeNiro, just because DeNiro wasn't cast as "Spiderman".
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 13, 2009 22:22:17 GMT -5
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. I think the reason WWE changed their programming is because you can only push the envelope so far and can only have so much "shock value" soon it ceases to become shocking. I get the Austin/Tyson thing, it probably helped sell some PPVs... but it doesnt account for once Tyson was gone aftr Mania 14 thats when the ratings started growing by the week.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 13, 2009 22:23:39 GMT -5
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. I'm not big on thin wrestlers myself being credible champions but if the WWE can have Rey Mysterio Jr and Jeff Hardy and that very lightweight tag team that included the guy named Spanky then I see no reason why Flair and Morton could have had a mini fued.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 13, 2009 22:30:22 GMT -5
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. I think the reason WWE changed their programming is because you can only push the envelope so far and can only have so much "shock value" soon it ceases to become shocking. I get the Austin/Tyson thing, it probably helped sell some PPVs... but it doesnt account for once Tyson was gone aftr Mania 14 thats when the ratings started growing by the week. I compare it to an avalanche. Once Tyson's appearance sparked a ton of media interest and exposure for the WWE then the male 18-35 prior non wrestling watching demographics were hooked to the show. And yes to Austins credit he kept them watching because he was cool not because IMHO he was a great wrestler. And it did not hurt at the time that besides the treat of seeing Austin that you had DX and two hours full of vulgarity frankly. Profanity and vulgarity sell especially to a younger audience even if in general they are not otherwise really true wrestling fans. Stone Cold's character was the symbol and backbone of the WWE vulgarity gimmick. It is like I said earlier that the WWE did not beat WCW on straight on pure wrestling competition but the WWE ina sense shifted a great deal of focus off of wrestling and became a hip type show.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 13, 2009 22:33:45 GMT -5
This Austin "defined an era" stuff doesn't really hold water. What people (and usually people who only listen to WWE's version of history) fail to realize is that wrestling was far more popular nationwide in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, up until the mid-1980s than it was in The Attitude Era. Was the merchandising as strong in those territory periods? No. Was there as much mainstream media attention paid? No. Were the TV ratings as good? Yeah. Especially in local markets. Was attendance as high? No, but WWE and WCW would only go to towns once or twice a year. Wrestling attendance was far higher nationally during the territory era than it was in The Attitude Era. People like Meltzer have figures to back that up. Flair was a huge deal to a lot of people as a travelling NWA world champion in the 1980s. Younger fans act like territories were on the level of indy promotions or ROH. They weren't. The territories drew tons of fans. Current ROH and old ECW were basically successful territories, but didn't come close to the crowds that Flair would draw when he came in as champ. He could draw 7,000 in Memphis, 12,000 in Dallas, 10,000 in The Meadowlands (running opposition to McMahon), 11,000 in Greensboro, 15,000 in New Orleans. Even lesser territories like Continental (Alabama) drew bigger regular crowds than places like ROH, and built their hottest cards around when they could get Flair for dates up until 87 or so when Crockett stopped sending him out. I hate how people act like Flair's nothing because they compare him to Attitude Era Austin. Austin was great, but he was the right guy in the right place at the right time when Vince McMahon caught lighting in a bottle ONCE (basically by stealing ideas from ECW and early NWO WCW). Apples and Oranges. Saying Austin is more important than Flair based on the Attitude Era is like saying Tobey Maguire is a more important actor than Robert DeNiro, just because DeNiro wasn't cast as "Spiderman". That is true and I think a lot of the fallacy is that people look at old territorial television videos and only see 50 people in the audience. But the wrestling shows themselves garnered great ratings in the local markets. I remember when a great way to find out about wrestlers and promotions from other parts of the nation was by reading the wrestling magazines. And it seemed that wrestling magazines were major sellers.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 13, 2009 22:35:15 GMT -5
This Austin "defined an era" stuff doesn't really hold water. What people (and usually people who only listen to WWE's version of history) fail to realize is that wrestling was far more popular nationwide in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, up until the mid-1980s than it was in The Attitude Era. Was the merchandising as strong in those territory periods? No. Was there as much mainstream media attention paid? No. Were the TV ratings as good? Yeah. Especially in local markets. Was attendance as high? No, but WWE and WCW would only go to towns once or twice a year. Wrestling attendance was far higher nationally during the territory era than it was in The Attitude Era. People like Meltzer have figures to back that up. Flair was a huge deal to a lot of people as a travelling NWA world champion in the 1980s. Younger fans act like territories were on the level of indy promotions or ROH. They weren't. The territories drew tons of fans. Current ROH and old ECW were basically successful territories, but didn't come close to the crowds that Flair would draw when he came in as champ. He could draw 7,000 in Memphis, 12,000 in Dallas, 10,000 in The Meadowlands (running opposition to McMahon), 11,000 in Greensboro, 15,000 in New Orleans. Even lesser territories like Continental (Alabama) drew bigger regular crowds than places like ROH, and built their hottest cards around when they could get Flair for dates up until 87 or so when Crockett stopped sending him out. I hate how people act like Flair's nothing because they compare him to Attitude Era Austin. Austin was great, but he was the right guy in the right place at the right time when Vince McMahon caught lighting in a bottle ONCE (basically by stealing ideas from ECW and early NWO WCW). Apples and Oranges. Saying Austin is more important than Flair based on the Attitude Era is like saying Tobey Maguire is a more important actor than Robert DeNiro, just because DeNiro wasn't cast as "Spiderman". Of course ratings were high for wrestling in the 50s and 60s there were 4 stations, and not many other options to watch. And one would have to assume attendence was higher during the terratories, since there were yanno, dozens of terratories rather than the 2 1/2 that were around during the "Attitude Era" And nobodies has acted like the terratories were minor leagues, nobody has just spewed out the WWEs account of history, you're trying to buffer your point by being condescending and its not working. I've seen just about everybody here give an honest assesment of what their opinion is, and I've seen you do the same and do nothing to diminish the opinions of the others. And the popularity of wrestling in the 50's and 60'sdoesnt really mean much to the conversation and your initial premise of "Austin defining an era doesnt hold water" those were all different eras, are you going to say the embodiment of the "Attitude Era" WASNT Austin? He most certainly brought that era to the forefront.. I dont care what ratings were in 1974... how about what they were in 1996 and then when Austin was champ in 1998? Through the roof... RAW ratings week after WM 13 2.7 RAW ratings week after WM 14 4.7... and they never looked back after Austin won the title. Hell in 1998 before Austin won the title ratings were the same as they are now, low to mid 3's... Austin changed the game. Nobody has said Flair is nothing, nobody (that I've seen unless I missed a post somewhere) has said NWA terratories were like ROH.. again your opinion seems to be awfully smarky as if nobody understands wrestling if they picked Austin, no matter how valid their points are. I Flair was great... Austin was great... the majority of people on this board think Austin is better, and not all are brainwashed idiots, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by "Nature Boy" Ric Moranis on Oct 13, 2009 22:37:57 GMT -5
The success of the Austin era had just as much to do with WCW completely sucking after it was really, really good for about one year at the beginning of the NWO. Vince McMahon and Steve Austin have Eric Bischoff, Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, heel Hogan more to thank for their grand success than Mike Tyson.
NWO brought those 18-34 fans before Mike Tyson showed up on RAW. McMahon signed Tyson to a huge deal out of panic. We all know that WCW was doing 4s and 5s before WWF was. Those fans left TNT on Monday nights for USA because WCW started to suck because their angles were directionless and boring, and Austin was pretty awesome on the "other wrestling".
But it was all a fad. Austin and The Rock (as much as they're "The biggest stars in wrestling history" to some) couldn't keep those fans. Once Vince bought WCW, wrestling fans disappeared en masse. Flair was never a fad.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 13, 2009 22:40:32 GMT -5
The success of the Austin era had just as much to do with WCW completely sucking after it was really, really good for about one year at the beginning of the NWO. Vince McMahon and Steve Austin have Eric Bischoff, Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, heel Hogan more to thank for their grand success than Mike Tyson. NWO brought those 18-34 fans before Mike Tyson showed up on RAW. McMahon signed Tyson to a huge deal out of panic. We all know that WCW was doing 4s and 5s before WWF was. Those fans left TNT on Monday nights for USA because WCW started to suck because their angles were directionless and boring, and Austin was pretty awesome on the "other wrestling". But it was all a fad. Austin and The Rock (as much as they're "The biggest stars in wrestling history" to some) couldn't keep those fans. Once Vince bought WCW, wrestling fans disappeared en masse. Flair was never a fad. How were they a "fad" Austin's body fell apart and The Rock became a huge main stream movie star... yanno after those two at the top of the card helped double the WWEs viewing audience.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 13, 2009 22:44:31 GMT -5
The success of the Austin era had just as much to do with WCW completely sucking after it was really, really good for about one year at the beginning of the NWO. Vince McMahon and Steve Austin have Eric Bischoff, Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, heel Hogan more to thank for their grand success than Mike Tyson. NWO brought those 18-34 fans before Mike Tyson showed up on RAW. McMahon signed Tyson to a huge deal out of panic. We all know that WCW was doing 4s and 5s before WWF was. Those fans left TNT on Monday nights for USA because WCW started to suck because their angles were directionless and boring, and Austin was pretty awesome on the "other wrestling". But it was all a fad. Austin and The Rock (as much as they're "The biggest stars in wrestling history" to some) couldn't keep those fans. Once Vince bought WCW, wrestling fans disappeared en masse. Flair was never a fad. Of course it could be argued that WCW botched Starcade 1997. And yes WCW did not help things themselves. But the bottomline is that when Mike Tyson showed up on Raw that the major media outlets to the chagrin of WCW made a huge issue of it. And yes I agree the NWO brought in new fans. However, when did WCW really ever consistently cross the line with constant vulgarity and profanity and half naked woman on their show. If anything WCW took the higher road even if it meant the real possibility of losing the ratings war.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 13, 2009 22:47:44 GMT -5
The success of the Austin era had just as much to do with WCW completely sucking after it was really, really good for about one year at the beginning of the NWO. Vince McMahon and Steve Austin have Eric Bischoff, Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, heel Hogan more to thank for their grand success than Mike Tyson. NWO brought those 18-34 fans before Mike Tyson showed up on RAW. McMahon signed Tyson to a huge deal out of panic. We all know that WCW was doing 4s and 5s before WWF was. Those fans left TNT on Monday nights for USA because WCW started to suck because their angles were directionless and boring, and Austin was pretty awesome on the "other wrestling". But it was all a fad. Austin and The Rock (as much as they're "The biggest stars in wrestling history" to some) couldn't keep those fans. Once Vince bought WCW, wrestling fans disappeared en masse. Flair was never a fad. How were they a "fad" Austin's body fell apart and The Rock became a huge main stream movie star... yanno after those two at the top of the card helped double the WWEs viewing audience. Earlier I posted that the surrealness of the Attitude Era is that The Rock is arguably a more mainstream household name than Austin is now. Would you agree? I tend to think so.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 13, 2009 22:49:38 GMT -5
How were they a "fad" Austin's body fell apart and The Rock became a huge main stream movie star... yanno after those two at the top of the card helped double the WWEs viewing audience. Earlier I posted that the surrealness of the Attitude Era is that The Rock is arguably a more mainstream household name than Austin is now. Would you agree? I tend to think so. I think Rock fit into the mold that was set forth by Austin and later in the era eclipsed him from time to time depending on the storylines/angles
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 13, 2009 22:56:36 GMT -5
Earlier I posted that the surrealness of the Attitude Era is that The Rock is arguably a more mainstream household name than Austin is now. Would you agree? I tend to think so. I think Rock fit into the mold that was set forth by Austin and later in the era eclipsed him from time to time depending on the storylines/angles IMHO only the Rock and Hogan transcended wrestling as far as having mainstream America appeal and fame. In fact I would say the average person on the street would recognize the Rock even over Austin. I think the irony here is that in this case Austin did more for the wrestling industry but the Rock sort of transcended wrestling like Hogan did. So in some unique way maybe it could be argued that Austin and Flair are more similar than the Rock and Hogan.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ike: Thread Killer on Oct 13, 2009 23:07:12 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? I said the exact same thing in the Hogan/Flair thread, I think the wrestling business would be completely different today if Turner never bought JCP (and apparently there was no way he would have bought it if Flair wasn't apart of the deal). Hell, without WCW steve Austin wouldn't of had a place to hone his craft, wouldn't of gone to ECW (there might of not even been an ECW since Heyman never had a chance to go to wcw as well) to start his basis for the SCSA character. If there was no WCW would Hogan still have come back to wrestling in 1994? Would he have stayed in Hollywood or would he had eventually return to wwf? Would the 'New Generation' had been able to get over if guys like Hogan, Macho, Hacksaw, etc stayed? I think the main way people are voting in this thread is how Austin/Flair affected THEIR history with professional wrestling. More people here are more familiar with the Attitude era than they are than the territories of the NWA. Although there is nothing wrong with that at all, I think this argument of "a long career of great matches, fueds, and moments to a loyal but smaller audience vs. a very profitable but short reign on the top" would work alot more if you used a wrestler whose prime was a bit more current than Flairs. I would be really interested to see who people here think is more important in wrestling history when comparing Bret Hart to someone like Austin or Rock.
|
|
|
Post by skiller on Oct 13, 2009 23:08:58 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) Yet which era do people remember more? Which character had a bigger impact on the business? Case closed [as far as I'm concerned].
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 13, 2009 23:40:38 GMT -5
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) Yet which era do people remember more? Which character had a bigger impact on the business? Case closed [as far as I'm concerned]. Depends on how old a person is and how long they have been watching wrestling. I have been watching wrestling since around 1980 or 1981. Wrestling did not just magically start in 1998. I remember both eras and although I did like the Attitude Era to a certain degree it wasn't as good as wrestling in the 1980s was. It is true that the 1980s (especially the early 1980s) did not have the mainstream pay per view and national live television and internet to boost popularity and t-shirt sales. There is no getting around that. I remember when cable first came to my area and I was able to watch the WWE taped shows rather than just the local NWA territorial promotions. You might be surprised how a lot of longtime wrestling fans even prefer the 1970s and 1980s to even the Monday Night Wars and Attitude Era. My father had watched wrestling starting in the very early 1960s and by the advent of the Monday Night Wars and then Attitude Era he quit watching after close to 40 years because he said it was getting to Hollywood like and not enough wrestling.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 13, 2009 23:59:27 GMT -5
The era I am most fond of is the one where Flair was in his prime. I am most fond of the NWA Jim Crockett Promotions mid 1980s era of Ric Flair, Dusty Rhodes, Nikita Koloff, Magnum TA, Tully Blanchard, Arn Anderson, the Midnight Express, the Rock n Roll express, etc. I can look back at videos from this era and still feel a sense of realness(even if it is actually staged) and excitement of great wrestling that had heated feuds, charismatic managers and great in ring action. And although I did like the Attitude Era to a degree I agree with a lot of people that when I look back at some of the matches and angles and gimmicks it seems that the Attitude Era has not aged well and frankly a lot of the over the top antics look silly now in retrospect.
|
|
|
Post by Tea & Crumpets on Oct 14, 2009 12:44:02 GMT -5
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. This is identical to today's wrestling. Foreigners, 9 times out of 10, are still heels. Faces are still the ones usually bookd to the title. Fans cheer the ones who usually win. 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. Then how come not everyone did attain it? How come so many NWA guys fell by the wayside....or weren't anybody until they faced FLAIR? Also yes...Austin saved WWE. However if he hadn't saved WWE, there'd still be WCW every Monday night. Wouldn't have changed all that much except which company won. I refer to my earlier post that was spectacularly no-sold about how Flair helped forge the Monday Night Wars. And one would have to assume attendence was higher during the terratories, since there were yanno, dozens of terratories rather than the 2 1/2 that were around during the "Attitude Era" Disagree completely. If theres more choice then less people are all gonna go to the same thing- thus attendances would be lower. Not only was average/total attendance higher but individual attendance too. When there's l;ittle choice, eg. 2-3 territories...people are gonna have to pick one. When there's dozens as you say, not everyone has to go to the same place. Yet still the attendances were huge. Also you said you don't care what ratings were in 1974. Then you're cutting out part of Flair's era, which really does hurt your argument. Does still annoy me though that my previous post, which was a well thought out and constructed argument as to Flair's importance....was completely ignored. Does seem the general consesus is "short-term popularity to casual TV fans who'll clear off in a year or 2 > long-term stable success to thousands of fans of the industry", and "1997-2000 ratings and crowds > 1976-1989 ratings and crowds".
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 14, 2009 15:11:46 GMT -5
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. This is identical to today's wrestling. Foreigners, 9 times out of 10, are still heels. Faces are still the ones usually bookd to the title. Fans cheer the ones who usually win. Then how come not everyone did attain it? How come so many NWA guys fell by the wayside....or weren't anybody until they faced FLAIR? Also yes...Austin saved WWE. However if he hadn't saved WWE, there'd still be WCW every Monday night. Wouldn't have changed all that much except which company won. I refer to my earlier post that was spectacularly no-sold about how Flair helped forge the Monday Night Wars. And one would have to assume attendence was higher during the terratories, since there were yanno, dozens of terratories rather than the 2 1/2 that were around during the "Attitude Era" Disagree completely. If theres more choice then less people are all gonna go to the same thing- thus attendances would be lower. Not only was average/total attendance higher but individual attendance too. When there's l;ittle choice, eg. 2-3 territories...people are gonna have to pick one. When there's dozens as you say, not everyone has to go to the same place. Yet still the attendances were huge. Also you said you don't care what ratings were in 1974. Then you're cutting out part of Flair's era, which really does hurt your argument. Does still annoy me though that my previous post, which was a well thought out and constructed argument as to Flair's importance....was completely ignored. Does seem the general consesus is "short-term popularity to casual TV fans who'll clear off in a year or 2 > long-term stable success to thousands of fans of the industry", and "1997-2000 ratings and crowds > 1976-1989 ratings and crowds". Theres a wider range of heels this days, well not so much these days anymore. I dont think you can honestly say wrestling in the 40's is in any way comparable to the "sports entertainment" product of today. It just isnt. The reason not many attained the level of superstardom that Flair is for the many reasons I stated, but his predesesors the Harley Race's, Dory Funks and Buddy Rogers of their times exceled because they were right for their times. I havent done anything but praise Flair, and understand that should the NWA have made Nikita Koloff the long term mid 80's champion rather than Flair we'd have been treated to an inferior product. Flair is a great performer and an absolute legend, I hold Austin in higher regard as a revolutionary figure that changed the wrestling landscape, and was at the head of the class that alsmot doubled wrestlings interest. Flair did what Harley Race had done before him, did he do it better? I'd be willing to agree with that. Did he change the wrestling landscape forever? Nope. Austin did, and thats why I put him ahead of Flair. First attendence wouldnt be lower, people in Florida watched Florida wrestling, people in Dallas watched World Class, people in Lousiana watched Mid South and so on thats different markets watching a different product. People didnt have the option to watch one over the other in many markets until the advent of cable, which lead to the decline and death of the territories. People watched hometown heroes and wrestling programing geared towards their region. And when I said I didnt care about ratings in 1974 it was in regards to a previous statement about how much Austin changed wrestling in an "era" Austin's "era" wasnt 1974 and the gap between 74-98 was too great to judge Austin's influence, i used a smaller time frame of what Wrestling was doing before and after Austin won the title. And I may have missed your last post, no disrespect meant at all. But there was a lot of stuff to read through and Im certain a post or two was missed, I'll make sure to read it tonight.
|
|
|
Post by machomuta on Oct 14, 2009 16:28:51 GMT -5
Austin all the way. He saved a wrestling company(WWE) from going under.
JCP went out of business, when Flair was on top.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 14, 2009 17:23:17 GMT -5
The thing I'm noticing is people are confusing mainstream wrestling with the whole wrestling business. Who was mroe important to mainstream wrestling? Austin by a country mile. Who was more important to the wrestling business as a whole? Flair. People are also seeming to prioritise short term peaks over long term prosperity. Who had the bigger success at any 1 individual point[/b? Austin.
Who had the greater impact over a long period of time? Flair.
Austin was more relevant and important at his best than Flair was at his best, but Flair was more relevant for a longer period of time. Austin was important from 97-02. Flair was important for over 20 years.
Austin was more important to mainstream wrestling, Flair to the whole wrestling industry. As such my vote goes to Ric.
EDIT:
Do some research you'll find what I am saying is accurate (I think that's why you are mainly arguing against the fact of Austin saving WWF from going bankrupt it is a well know fact.) Ric Flair was a bit player in Evolution. Evolution would have worked without Flair but not HHH. HHH was booked as the leader of Evolution where as Flair was booked as pretty weak and made to job to the spirit squad.
Think you need to do a bit of research yourself. Firstly Spirit Squad were over a year AFTER Evolution broke up. Secondly Flair was not just a bit player of Evoltuion. Yes he was booked as the easiest to beat (he is in his 50s though, so its not surprising booking and if he was booked as tough people would claim he was overpushed), but that doesn't make him a bit player as he still had equal importance to the group- he was booked as the one who ensured HHH kept the title numerous times, for one thing.
Plus his tag title runs with Batista were what FIRST established Batista as somebody. Here's a guy who was D-Von Dudley's pretend deacon. Now, he's paired with the legendary Ric Flair, who takes him on as his personal protege. That in itself is a rub. Then, they start teaming and win the titles. Why? Because of HHH running in and sledgehammering everyone? Because of Superric? Nope. Because Flair gets killed every match but then cheats a bit, switches out to batista who destroys everyone. You've got a legend in Flair getting handily beaten by 2 guys, then in comes Batista and crushes both of them by himself. That's another big rub. Without his tag run with Flair Batista would never have got as over as he did, never have gotten the pops for being such a badass, never had the big face turn. He might've been another Umaga, he might've been another Snitsky. The HHH feud made Batista, yes. The Flair tag run was what gave Batista the chance to break through the glass ceiling.
Then let's move on. Take Carlito. Flair did a respect-earning angle with Carlito, then they teamed and won the tag titles. The announcers sold it as huge, Flair put Carlito over on the mic, and again in the ring Carlito was booked as the driving force of the team (as best as I remember). Of course Carlito never succeeded in breaking through, but his run with Flair probably saved him from jobberdom.
And I say this as somebody who, up until his match at WM24, thought Flair had long outstayed his welcome. Fact is when you look back, Flair did more even in the last few years than people realise. Im guessing this was the post you had refered to. Flair's mega importance wasnt a continuous 20 years, Im sorry but after the nWo came into WCW Flair was relegated to mid card status and put on the backburner, seldomly wrestled and had a weekly 4 minute interview with Gene Okerlund. Was his still popular? Sure, did he still get a reaction? Absolutly, so did Dallas Page at the same time, is DDP on Flair's level? Flair 96-his retirement was a mid carder when he wrestled, his skills so badly diminished he went from one of the greatest workers of all time to absolutly terrible. Again, does this mean Flair was useless? Nope, but he was a bit player, certainly you can't put his final deacde in the same league as his previous decade's work, I'd grant you the NWA and early WCW needed Flair mid 90's WCW, late 90's WCW and 2000s WWE didnt need him, he was dispensable... still had his own niche, still could be entertaining in spots, but a shadow of what he once was and hardly "important" by ANY standards. I hate to compare other sports to wrestling but look at Bret Favre... first half of his career amazing, second half pedestrian and he became replacable. If you're going to count the last decade of Flair's career as "great" you need to count Austin's pre WWF 92-95... You didnt... why? Because Austin was a passable midcarder who occasionally put on a good match and fit his role well. Its hypocritical to put Flair's middle of the road career as part of "A great 20" If you want to mark 1981 when he won his first world title through 1993, hell even 1994 I'll give it to you, Flair was simply outstanding even when WCW decided they would be Hogan-centric and put Flair on the backburner. And I disagree wholeheartedly with your point that Flair was bigger to wrestling as a whole.. based on what criteria? I think the turnaround the WWF experienced once they made Austin world champ speaks for itself. The WWF was going to go out of business without a miracle.. and the Austin character was the driving force that saved the company.. Guys in the wrestling business still have high paying jobs today selling out major arenas world wide thanks in part to Austin catching fire and bringing a whole new generation of fans into the industry. What if WWF went under? Would WCW still have folded? Based on what I've read and heard WCW was going to close shop eventually one way or another.. what would wrestling look like today had the WWF not doubled their viewing audience? Its not out of the realm of possibilities that it'd be dead and buried and we might not have a legitimate "major league" of wrestling today. That is Austin's legacy, take Austin out and you're watching an inferior product on a smaller scale.. Take Flair out we're denied a treasure trove of outstanding matches and memorable angles
|
|