Austin= Ultimate Warrior

[CT LFC Fan]

Wait, wait, hear me out...

Both Austin and Warrior had very high career peaks. But in both cases, those peaks were short lived. While warrior went in and out of wrestling for about 5-10 years after he peaked, Austin remained an active wrestler for even less time than that. And like Warrior, the quality of his work deteriorated towards the end.

I'm not speaking of Austin's in-ring work so much. His character definitely changed. He went from a guy who couldn't care less what the crowd thought of him (and flipped them off to boot) to a guy who pandered to the crowd (WHAT!) and gave them a two fingered salute. And to me, this was hugely disappointing. I loved him when he was chasing Bret Hart. But pretty much from the time he beat HBK at WM on, he was stale and boring to me.

And I suppose we could say there are other similarities too. Warrior is nuts. Austin's a wife beater. So neither will be nominated for humanitarian of the year in the near future.

Thoughts?

[Nickie James]

Oh. I thought you were thinking of how these two were enigmatic mic-workers that stole the hearts of many fans anyway, despite the fact that some of them could not decipher what they're trying to say. But hey, that works too.

[CT LFC Fan]

Wel, yeah I mean they both did a ral bang up job for a relatively short period of time. So, I suppose we could look at it your way too...:-)

[Loki]

Many will argue that Warrior ultimately flopped as Champion, while Austin ushered in a new Era of Sports-Entertaining. And to some extent it's true.

But I have to say WWE wasn't totally behind Warrior after he won the belt. On the other hand Austin got A+ material once they understood the whole Stone Cold gimmick could have worked.

For the similarities, it's just a matter of being pushed to the moon for the connection with the crowd and the relatively short-term plan. Austin is still kinda there because he didn't burn the bridges like Warrior did.

Bottom line: I don't agree 100% with the original post, but I can see some valid points...

[4real]

So from the time he beat HBK at Wmania on he was boring? Seriously? After that was probably the most exciting period of WWE i've ever seen. Austin certainly was not boring, you had no clue what the heck he was gonna do next.

And yes i was a mark back then, thankfully.

[CT LFC Fan]

4real said:

So from the time he beat HBK at Wmania on he was boring? Seriously? After that was probably the most exciting period of WWE i've ever seen. Austin certainly was not boring, you had no clue what the heck he was gonna do next.

And yes i was a mark back then, thankfully.

We can disagree on the point, but I think from Austin Vs. HBK on, he declined. He was pretty good right after Mania (not as good as when he feuded w/ Hart, but still good) and slid to atrocious (seriously) during the WHAT? era.

That's just my opinion. No one has to agree.

BTW, you must be loving what Liverpool is doing to Chelski right now...

[4real]

veggietales said:

4real said:

So from the time he beat HBK at Wmania on he was boring? Seriously? After that was probably the most exciting period of WWE i've ever seen. Austin certainly was not boring, you had no clue what the heck he was gonna do next.

And yes i was a mark back then, thankfully.

We can disagree on the point, but I think from Austin Vs. HBK on, he declined. He was pretty good right after Mania (not as good as when he feuded w/ Hart, but still good) and slid to atrocious (seriously) during the WHAT? era.

That's just my opinion. No one has to agree.

BTW, you must be loving what Liverpool is doing to Chelski right now...

Yes, yes i am ;D I find it hilarious that Chelsea can't score at The Kop and we managed it 5 times. Thankfully Liverpool decided to show up today and not 2 weeks ago.

[skskillz]

Austin's run lasted about three years: late-1997, 1998, 1999, and early-2001 (I'm combining 1997 and 2001). He was injured in 2000. That's not a very long time, but I've always maintained that the Attitude Era killed wrestling and has made Hogan/Flair type careers almost impossible to maintain. The shelf-life for a wrestling character nowadays is 3-5 years, tops.

With Warrior, it was a number of things that lead to his small run. Firstly, he was a prick backstage and fired twice. The first firing (1991) really killed his momentum. Instead of having programs with Jake and a fresh Undertaker character, he was off television for 7 months and came back to wrestle Papa Shango. The 2nd firing had less effect since the WWF was not having a good financial year anyway (1992), so Warrior's impact wasn't as great.

Warrior's run was really 1989, 1990, and the first half of 1991. Austin drew more money, that can't be argued, but if we're looking strictly from a time standpoint, it's certainly a valid comparison.

[therealmamamiller]

[I've always maintained that the Attitude Era killed wrestling and has made Hogan/Flair type careers almost impossible to maintain. The shelf-life for a wrestling character nowadays is 3-5 years, tops.

Thank you for saying what you said about the Attitude Era killing wrestling (at least as I knew and loved it). I know I'm in a very small minority but I've always detested Steve Austin, his characters and what I've read about the man himself. He's not the least talented wrestler I've ever seen but I feel he's far from the ring God that people have made him out to be. Frankly I feel that one of the main things that got him over with to begin with was the fact that people were getting tired of Bret Hart who in my opinion was boring. On ther personal level I have no use for a man that abuses women (once maybe but he's got a long history of it).

Warrior on the other hand as a character was entertaining if not much of a wrestler. He was never in his wrestling prime in tems of his abilities but when he was over he was over.

Warrior and SCSA were both the proverbial flashes in the pan on that point I agree

[Red 'n' Black Reggie]

in my opinion, austin never moved from his peak. he hasnt wrestled in ages, and i dont blame him, because he could well come back as a second rate version of himself and ruin his legacy in the same way as hogan and the ECW logo. if you think that austin went downhill after HBK, watch his match at wm17.

[FrankGotch]

You cant even make a comparison.

Austin lasted much longer as a main eventer and had a totaly origanal gimmick.

I have always thought the main reason that Warrior failed was because his gimmick was a rehash of hogan. Just replace the leg drop with the splash and less (yes thats right) less in ring talent and you get the Warrior.

You see SCSA had a gimmick that had many levels to it and could go in almost any direction. He could be an unstoppablr force and an underdog at the same time. He could be a heel one week and the fan favorite the next. When you saw SCSA coming down to the ring you did'nt know if he would win or lose, but you knew you would be entertained.

Now take Warrior he had a one dimentional gimmick. All of his matches were 3 minute squashes, you always knew he would win. Ask anyone what his best match was they will tell you it was WM6. That is because it is the one match that had someone who people thought could go head to head with the Warrior and come out on top. After Warrior won the title he had nowhere to go because Hogan had already been there and done the same type title run. So by the time Warrior did it, it was old news.

[repomark]

therealmamamiller said:

[I've always maintained that the Attitude Era killed wrestling and has made Hogan/Flair type careers almost impossible to maintain. The shelf-life for a wrestling character nowadays is 3-5 years, tops.

Thank you for saying what you said about the Attitude Era killing wrestling (at least as I knew and loved it). I know I'm in a very small minority but I've always detested Steve Austin, his characters and what I've read about the man himself. He's not the least talented wrestler I've ever seen but I feel he's far from the ring God that people have made him out to be. Frankly I feel that one of the main things that got him over with to begin with was the fact that people were getting tired of Bret Hart who in my opinion was boring. On ther personal level I have no use for a man that abuses women (once maybe but he's got a long history of it).

Warrior on the other hand as a character was entertaining if not much of a wrestler. He was never in his wrestling prime in tems of his abilities but when he was over he was over.

Warrior and SCSA were both the proverbial flashes in the pan on that point I agree

Okay lets start by saying I was, am and forever will be a huge Austin fan so perhaps I am viewing this through 3.16 tinged glasses - but that out of the way let me argue my point.

First on time scale - correct that both were not on top for as long as they could have been. However Austin's peak being cut short was down to injury not being an overwhelmingly repugnant human being as was the cause of Mr Hellwig's run on top being ended.

Also - I would disagree on length of time. Austin was on top for really from 97-01 (I would still count the period he was injured in 2000 as he made an appearance to help the Rock win the belt at Backlash 2000 which probably was the pop of the year), Warrior was only on top for around a year from 1990 - 1991.

Now we come to the "flash in the pan" statement. Austin was on top, and one of if not the reasons that the business took off to levels that no one imagined were possible. Austin has a legacy that Mr Hellwig can only dream of. I think the 3.16 t shirts out sold the destrucity ones. A four year run as arguably the most popular star in the history of the business - breaking all kinds of buy rate, viewing figures and merchandise sales records in the process - does not exactly describe a flash in the pan.

Also Austin has a legacy in my view beyond his peak period, Warrior does not. Austin was in one of the greatest tag teams of all time in WCW (the Hollywood Blondes) and in ECW cut some of the greatest interviews ever seen when he was venting his frustration at WCW. Lets not forget the Raw moments he was the star of - Beer truck, Dr Austin, Zamboni, Cemented corvette etc etc etc.

In the ring Austin was also party to so many great matches - whilst at his peak period. He also had legendary feuds with Bret Hart, the Rock, the Undertaker, Triple H and ofcourse the greatest feud of all time with Vince. The Warrior only had three good matches in his whole career - Hogan, Rude and Savage. At his peak and whilst he had the title - the Warrior never really had a match worth speaking of and buy rates declined.

Mic skills are obviously in Austin's favour as well. "If ya want to see me lay down on the lawn and let them run over me with lawn mowers - give me a hell yeah."

Now I am guessing if you are not an Austin fan you never will be. I will never condone some of his actions outwith the ring and in his personal life which you rightfully condem - but the Austin character was in my opinion the greatest thing to happen in the history of wrestling.

Austin was a self made character as well - the crowd cheered him when he was supposed to be a heel because they saw something fresh, something real. Austin was being himself turned up to ten. The Warrior was completely manufactured and basically the wrestling equivalent of Pop Idol.

And I am spent. I see your point in the original post - but I have to disagree.

[Brock The Octopus]

His WMVI match isn't even his best WM match. His WMVII retirement match against savage is much better (in my opinion).

[amsiraK]

repomark said:

therealmamamiller said:

[I've always maintained that the Attitude Era killed wrestling and has made Hogan/Flair type careers almost impossible to maintain. The shelf-life for a wrestling character nowadays is 3-5 years, tops.

Thank you for saying what you said about the Attitude Era killing wrestling (at least as I knew and loved it). I know I'm in a very small minority but I've always detested Steve Austin, his characters and what I've read about the man himself. He's not the least talented wrestler I've ever seen but I feel he's far from the ring God that people have made him out to be. Frankly I feel that one of the main things that got him over with to begin with was the fact that people were getting tired of Bret Hart who in my opinion was boring. On ther personal level I have no use for a man that abuses women (once maybe but he's got a long history of it).

Warrior on the other hand as a character was entertaining if not much of a wrestler. He was never in his wrestling prime in tems of his abilities but when he was over he was over.

Warrior and SCSA were both the proverbial flashes in the pan on that point I agree

Okay lets start by saying I was, am and forever will be a huge Austin fan so perhaps I am viewing this through 3.16 tinged glasses - but that out of the way let me argue my point.

First on time scale - correct that both were not on top for as long as they could have been. However Austin's peak being cut short was down to injury not being an overwhelmingly repugnant human being as was the cause of Mr Hellwig's run on top being ended.

Also - I would disagree on length of time. Austin was on top for really from 97-01 (I would still count the period he was injured in 2000 as he made an appearance to help the Rock win the belt at Backlash 2000 which probably was the pop of the year), Warrior was only on top for around a year from 1990 - 1991.

Now we come to the "flash in the pan" statement. Austin was on top, and one of if not the reasons that the business took off to levels that no one imagined were possible. Austin has a legacy that Mr Hellwig can only dream of. I think the 3.16 t shirts out sold the destrucity ones. A four year run as arguably the most popular star in the history of the business - breaking all kinds of buy rate, viewing figures and merchandise sales records in the process - does not exactly describe a flash in the pan.

Also Austin has a legacy in my view beyond his peak period, Warrior does not. Austin was in one of the greatest tag teams of all time in WCW (the Hollywood Blondes) and in ECW cut some of the greatest interviews ever seen when he was venting his frustration at WCW. Lets not forget the Raw moments he was the star of - Beer truck, Dr Austin, Zamboni, Cemented corvette etc etc etc.

In the ring Austin was also party to so many great matches - whilst at his peak period. He also had legendary feuds with Bret Hart, the Rock, the Undertaker, Triple H and ofcourse the greatest feud of all time with Vince. The Warrior only had three good matches in his whole career - Hogan, Rude and Savage. At his peak and whilst he had the title - the Warrior never really had a match worth speaking of and buy rates declined.

Mic skills are obviously in Austin's favour as well. "If ya want to see me lay down on the lawn and let them run over me with lawn mowers - give me a hell yeah."

Now I am guessing if you are not an Austin fan you never will be. I will never condone some of his actions outwith the ring and in his personal life which you rightfully condem - but the Austin character was in my opinion the greatest thing to happen in the history of wrestling.

Austin was a self made character as well - the crowd cheered him when he was supposed to be a heel because they saw something fresh, something real. Austin was being himself turned up to ten. The Warrior was completely manufactured and basically the wrestling equivalent of Pop Idol.

And I am spent. I see your point in the original post - but I have to disagree.

Gotta side here, even though I was a Warrior fan in my younger, markish days. The Warrior had something special, but didn't really revolutionize anything. Meanwhile Austin was one of the people heralding in a new era in wrestling.

Plus, the whole "Austin not constantly spewing loads of gibberish" also weighs in heavily.

[bshadye413]

veggietales said:

I'm not speaking of Austin's in-ring work so much. His character definitely changed. He went from a guy who couldn't care less what the crowd thought of him (and flipped them off to boot) to a guy who pandered to the crowd (WHAT!) and gave them a two fingered salute. And to me, this was hugely disappointing. I loved him when he was chasing Bret Hart. But pretty much from the time he beat HBK at WM on, he was stale and boring to me.

Finally someone that agrees with me!! Austin was great when he didnt care what the fans thought, but then his character completely changed and I found him to be less entertaining everytime i saw him.

As far as the Warrior/Austin comparisons, there are some similarities there. Whether people will admit it or not, Warrior was insanely over in his prime. But he was the one that was supposed to carry WWE after Hogan "retired", and he failed. While I dont like Austin, he did lead them to the height of their popularity. I find both guys very overrated, but they both deserve credit for what they did.

[DrBackflipsHoffman]

Yea, Austin and the business as a whole went right downhill after WM 14. Biggest down period of all time.

It's a daft comparison to make. They both had short periods of time on top? Warrior defenitely, Austin not so much, the guy was totally on fire 97 to 2002 (not counting the 2000 absebce), completely ushered in a new era and became the figurehead of Atitude. Warrior - not so much, the guy is defenitely a flash in the pan Left the WWE, killed his momentum the first time and completely faded into obscurity.

Austins got a main event spot for life, and sitting on the biggest match of all time with Hogan.

If we're gonna go making wild accusations, then surely Brock = Warrior.

[amsiraK]

I think that's more on point. Neither really ever reached the highest point they could and hubris brought an end to both in-ring careers.

[Error]

Austin= Warrior



Oh, your serious?



They had a short time on top of WWF/E but, Austin's was more due to injury than dipshittedness like Warrior. Austin was more talented in ring, spent more time on top, changed the game and was was for most part liked backstage.

Both Austin and Warrior had very high career peaks. But in both cases, those peaks were short lived. While warrior went in and out of wrestling for about 5-10 years after he peaked, Austin remained an active wrestler for even less time than that. And like Warrior, the quality of his work deteriorated toward the end.

Umm, Austin had 6 years on top of WWE and 2 years where he was one of top guys in WCW (maybe more). He also wrestled from 1989-2002 and would have gone longer had Owen not broken his neck.

For the final 2 or 3 years of his career his in ring work wasn't that good? Well, working with a broken neck and 2 bad knees will do that, what was Warrior's excuse for any two year stretch of his career?

[Cousin Judge]

On the "Austin drew more money" point, at that stage WWF was a PLC and was floated on the stock market, as many companies from that era were WAAAAY over-valued, how do we know that it was down to Austin that they made all that money?

I'm just saying that if you look at the number of bums on seats and number of people who expressed an interest in the product through television, Warrior has to be on top.