MoS

Is there a place where I can get a Kindle version of Tributes? Amazon does not seem to have it.

I think Austin was very clumsy, but, strangely, that added to his matches instead of taking away from them. It added a sense of gritty realism and urgency to his matches, and it ties to the larger point of being very easy to be sucked into his matches. There would be times when he would deliver a steel chair shot, and would himself fall over doing it. Stuff like that, to me, would sort of build the madcap speed and the whirlwind nature of his matches. He was not one of the most fluid guys on the roster, and he used that to his advantage.

This is an absolutely fascinating read. Loss, can you do something bout the formatting of old threads like this? The line breaks disappear and reading blocks of text is a very tedious task. As for Hogan-Austin comparisons, I have Hogan above Austin for precisely what he helped Vince do in the 80s. Although Austin at his peak was probably a bigger dra than Hogan at his peak, the sheer importance of Hogan's run is too much. However, Austin made the WWF into such a gargantuan money-making machine that the brand, to this date, is a huge draw, surviving numerous scandals. That is not something you can say about Hogan. The WWE has never been in as bad a shape as it was in the mid-90s, and Austin deserves some credit for it.

I am mighty biased here, because Austin and his brawls got me into wrestling, but for all the supposed formulaic nature of his brawling, he managed to keep the pace strong and never let the energy sag during his brawls, which is a huge factor in judging the quality of his brawls. Definitely not the GOAT for brawling in my eyes, (that would be Hansen) but he is very, very good in my opinion at brawling. The fire in his eyes, his defiance and his movements, his energy, his ability to get people involved in his comebacks are all incredible. He was incredible at getting the character work shine through during his matches. I remember Unforgiven, when all he did was come out, stun Steve Blackman, and stun Shane McMahon 3 times. If anyone else had done that, it would have been a waste of 10 minutes. But, Austin made it extremely entertaining. And the crowd heat throughout was out of the world. It was amazing to watch.

To the people who know, what do the numbers say about the shows Bruno headlined during the 80s? I have heard him claim more than once that the numbers would drop because the law of diminishing returns would apply to hogan like Parv said, and he had to be brought back to the ring to boost up the numbers. did Bruno manage to do that? I would count that as a huge plus in the post-prime category if he did manage to do it, for the sheer longevity of it.

i mostly agree about the special connection which Bruno had, and I agree that Austin was an overnight sensation while Bruno's legend was moulded and crafter with time. I do not want to turn this into an Austin v. Bruno debate, but I would say that while his pops were loudest for his entrance and his stunners, the crowd would be molten hot throughout. The reason I say this is because I do think Austin was genuinely loved by the audience just like Bruno was. I remember MSG chanting his name all the time during his match with 'Taker, at Summerslam, for example. And I do think Austin would have burnt out in 20 years, but that is more because of how much exposure he had during his time. It is interesting you say he would have burnt out, because the reason I thought of this is because Meltzer was talking about his heel turn when he compared him to Bruno, and said there was a reason Bruno never turned, and Austin should not have either. In any case, I thought no one got pops like Austin did, and then I saw Bruno. I would still give Austin the edge there, but that is more due to crowd demographics and better sound equipments. The pin-drop silence after he lost his title in 1972 is probable the most eerie moment in wrestling. Also, is Ric Flair's allegation about Bruno receiving crickets in St. Louis is true? I mean, I obviously do not expect the reception to be like MSG, but Bruno has always said that he got big pops wherever he went because fans knew him because of all the New York magazines.

I remember once Meltzer compaing Austin to Bruno and Rock to Hogan in terms of connection with the crowd. I think that is an interesting comparison to make. Rock was larger-than-lie and had the superstar charisma of Hogan. Austin had Bruno's genuine, earthy charisma, and a sense of belonging which the crowd felt. Do you agree with that comparison, Parv?

I want to thank Dylan for pimping the PR stuff. The Colon feud is one of the best feuds I have seen. If his All-Japan stuff is as good as this, and I am going to delve into it shortly, then he would be No. 1 in my book.

I would like to chime in to show my support for PWO. I am a 21-year old from India who has never had access to anything but WWE and had not heard of dirtsheets for the first 6-7 years of his fandom. As such, this place is a goldmine for me, and gives so many opportunities to learn about wrestling, something I love from the bottom of my heart. It is like going to school. I understand the criticism about hive mentality, but if anything, it has been beneficial to me. I came here thinking Shawn Michaels was legitimately the greatest wrestler the world has ever seen, and then I saw a bunch of intelligent posts breaking down Shawn's weaknesses in minute detail, and I learned so much. That, to me, is the strength of PWO: the intensive discussions. That should be encouraged. Although I still believe Shawn was a very good wrestler, for example, I have learned to appreciate the chinks in his armour a lot more. Thumbs up to PWO for that. I do not even post much. Just lurk here and soak up the information.

I do not like the Iron Man match, but I do not think Shawn can be faulted for it. I thought he put in a great performance in it. That said, the way the last 1 minute was put together really pisses me off. If Shawn has so little time left, why on earth would he try an elbow drop, a move that has NEVER brought him a pinfall victory? Why would he waste time going to the top at all? I know this is not the thread, but for all of Bret's criticism about internal logic in Flair's matches, this one was ridiculous to say the least.

I do not see how you can make an argument that Rock did not push himself to get better, seeing how he upped his game significantly when there was an influx of talent in 2000, and in general, it can be said that all facets of his work improved with each passing year. 2003 saw some of his best work. It was said that he would watch his tapes to see how he could improve himself. And charisma is an integral part of being a pro wrestler, in my opinion. It cannot be separated.

I would put him in the lower sections of the top 100. Probably the best mic worker at getting the fans involved, was really good at getting his heat back after losing, was a very enthusiastic seller, and had quite a lot of great matches. Crowd reactions were second only to Austin, and that added to the heat of the match.

Stone Cold is the reason I am a wrestling fan today. I would argue no WWE ace evoked more passionate reactions than Austin at his peak. He is the greatest "TV worker" inWWE history. He did the little things so well, selling, evoking sympathy, showing fire against all odds. He was brilliant at making his in-ring work seem like an extension of his character, and playing his character all the time. Definitely top ten for me.

I would not agree. As Chris Jericho said, Austin's pops were always a shade above Rock's pops, and I would argue this was true even for 2000, which is a distant third in terms of Austin's overall overness behind 98/99. Although I do wonder why it is always Austin who is compared with Hogan for measuring the most popular WWE wrestler of all time. Should Rock not be in the discussion as well? He certainly belongs with them, and it can be argued, has better numbers than them as well. This, of course, is without counting his successful movie career.

The Background - Not many know this, but The Undertaker is hugely popular in India. Like, Bret Hart-in-Germany level popular. He has always been. So, they got Brian Lee to play The Undertaker in a Hindi movie, matching him up against one of the industry's most popular action stars, Akshay Kumar. He essentially played The Undertaker, a wrestler in an underground wrestling business. In this clip, he takes on Crush, who is sadly uncredited, in a fight literally to the death. It is a fun little match, although the psychology is all wrong - a Tombstone is treated as less dangerous than a drop toe hold, for instance. But it is worth checking out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3nPu5x9pLc P.S - I do not know if Pro Wrestling Mostly is the more appropriate forum for this, so if a moderator wants to move it to that forum, I will not complain.

How would you guys rate Steve Austin's performance as company ace? By this term, I am excluding the time in 2001 when he was WWF heel champ for most of the year as I strictly want to talk about his babyface run. Most people, when talking about great company aces, (this excludes drawing) talk about Shawn and Bret as great, consistent main event aces. Dylan said he might consider Cena to be the best company ace. I think Austin is unfairly shunted and excluded in these discussions. True, if the sole metric is matches, then he does not hold up as well as others. His time on top was short, and his body was broken down by them. However, analysing his performance week-to-week, he does a fantastic job, in my opinion. Austin was so good with his facial epressions, and, for all the talk about his changing the dynamics of faces and heels in WWF, he was a fantastic babyface. He was great at evoking sympathy from the crowd, and getting over the heels he was wrestling as credible threats. He was brilliant as a fiery babyface making comebacks and milking comebacks to the last little drop. it is telling that he was booked just as strongly as every company ace, yet he had no problems appearing vulnerable, something which not many have been able to do. Thoughts?

I read somewhere that Heyman himself made quite a bit of money from it, and ultimately used it to get himself a fat contract with Vince; that the filing for bankruptcy was just so that Vince could more easily purchase the assets. Is that correct?

Hello everyone. I am a wrestling fan from India; been one for close to 15 years now. I like reading as much as I possibly can about wrestling. This is something I have often wondered: how successful was ECW as a promotion? I have heard varied accounts. Some say that ECW never made Heyman a dime; while others talk about how he took Eastern Championship Wrestling from a struggling regional promotion drawing less than 200 to its shows to the third most successful American wrestling promotion of the 90s. Which one is closer to the truth? Can ECW be considered, all in all, a more successful promotion than WCW, seeing how WCW had everything, yet ultimately failed in a spectacular manner?