Would Steve Austin be looked at like HHH with longer time?

[Smack2k]

If Steve Austin would have lasted longer in the WWF/E Main Event scene (he did 98-99 then Late 2000 - early 2002) do you think he'd get the Backlash HHH gets for not putting people over or not being helpful to other wrestlers, holding people back, or not? Austin left WWE supposedly cause he didn't want to put Brock over, on TV, but I don't know if a PPV idea was ever tossed. He wouldn't work with Jarrett and didn't want to face HHH at Summerlsam '99 one on one…I don't know about others…but you see the idea…HHH being there in Main Event from 99-10 outside a couple injury years gave him a MUCH bigger time to be hated…

 

Just something I've always wondered.

[Matt D]

Austin knew how to garner sympathy as a babyface and keep things interesting during a match as a heel. That's a hell of an advantage Hunter didn't have. He also was pretty good at keeping his act fresh except for, maybe, when he was the GM.

[Guest Staples]

He said he didn't want to job to Lesnar in a match that had no build. Could just be typical wrestler talk, but Lesnar agreed with him in his book.

[Smack2k]

I was just using those as quick examples of things people could use if years and years of him being on top and doing things like that in the same manner of HHH.....not as "here, look, he did it examples..."

[Jimmy Redman]

As Matt D sort of said, Austin was just better than Hunter. A fair part of the backlash against Hunter's politicking stemmed from him being shoved down people's throats for so long and people resenting the fact that he was on top and so, by extension, the way he got there and stayed there. It was also partly a knee-jerk reaction to Hunter marrying the boss' daughter and people being very aware of the powerful position he was in. (In comparison if you look at, say, complaints about Cena being on top, they are usually directed far more at Vince pushing him than Cena pushing himself, if that makes sense. Because we don't get the impression that he is pushing himself, the way that we do with Hunter, again, because of the position he's in.)

 

The question also assumes that Austin will continue to provide examples of him "holding down" other guys, which I wouldn't necessarily bet on. Austin was always definitely out for himself, but the times where he's thrown his weight around that we know of, the ones in the OP, all come off far more as Austin doing the smart thing (or at the very least able to be spun that way), rather than things Hunter has done that come off as him being selfish and burying other guys.

 

Hunter is hated not because of longevity but because he has given people reasons to be hated (or if we don't want to give him that much agency, Vince has). Undertaker has been a main eventer in WWE for twice as long and he isn't hated as a politician by fans.

[Smack2k]

Cool...makes sense in what you say...but I still get the feeling that if he was on top for that long, some sort of hatred would start as just seems to happen when someone is on top for a long time....

[Matt D]

I do think you can look at his GM run as an example. He was getting heat on everyone without any real benefit to it to anyone.

[JerryvonKramer]

Reckon this comes down to charisma. One man has bags of it, the other has virtually none of it and to make matters worse doesn't seem to realise it. People dislike Hunter because he's not very likable, then find reasons to justify their dislike.

[Gregor]

I don't think it's charisma. Hogan had tons of charisma, and from 1998-2000 he annoyed the internet as much as HHH did later.

[JerryvonKramer]

HHH didn't have a big hand in destroying a company though. Charisma doesn't make you immune from criticism if your crimes are big enough and Hogan's "crimes" during that era far outweigh Hunter's. If HHH was as likeable as Hogan, perhaps he wouldn't be as hated as he is.

 

People resent HHH's time on top -- and this is my personal take -- because he doesn't have and has never had the X Factor to be there. So they find whatever reasons they can to criticise him to justify their dislike. This isn't anything premeditated on the part of fans, it's just the way the human mind works. He's not very likable, so will de facto attract more criticism than Austin even if Austin was in the same spot doing the same stuff because people want to find reasons for their gut feelings. You can look at someone like Richard Nixon (just not a very likeable guy), and a someone like Bill Clinton (charismatic) and how each of them were able to deal with knocks and adversity. Or Tony Blair (charismatic) who was still able to win elections despite being widely perceived as a liar, and Gordon Brown (just not a very likable guy) was more or less destroyed by his inability to get over with the media despite being widely perceived as being quite a clever chap.

 

The initial question was about if Austin would be perceived like HHH is, and my view is that it comes down to that.

[Jimmy Redman]

Cool...makes sense in what you say...but I still get the feeling that if he was on top for that long, some sort of hatred would start as just seems to happen when someone is on top for a long time....

There's a difference between a certain amount of people getting tired of one guy being on top forever, and a guy being specifically hated for politicking and keeping himself on top forever.

 

Almost anyone who's been on top for a long time had that audience fatigue to some extent. That wasn't what you were asking though.

[El-P]

HHH is not very charismatic, is not a very good promo, is not a very good worker, doesn't have the X-factor. And yet has been pushed down people's throat since... hum... 1997. Big difference.

 

Austin not wanting to work with Jarrett on top was understandable, as showed by Jarrett's inability to get over (and I'm talking on a upper mid-card level) and his disastrous run as a "main event" player in WCW. He just wasn't on that level. As far as not wanting to drop the belt to HHH at SummerSlam 99, same thing to me, HHH just wasn't on that level (although got over much more than Jarrett by this point, despite not being a better worker on any level, thanks to a relentless push).

 

Could the people have turned again Austin at some point ? Probably. It happens all the time. But be looked at like HHH ? Nah. Just two different beasts to me.

[Smack2k]

Cool...makes sense in what you say...but I still get the feeling that if he was on top for that long, some sort of hatred would start as just seems to happen when someone is on top for a long time....

There's a difference between a certain amount of people getting tired of one guy being on top forever, and a guy being specifically hated for politicking and keeping himself on top forever.

 

Almost anyone who's been on top for a long time had that audience fatigue to some extent. That wasn't what you were asking though.

 

I guess I worded it wrong at first...as that was what I actually meant...would Austin have a ton of negative thoughts ala HHH if he was on top as long and still worked at WWE.

[Jimmy Redman]

Then not to the level of Hunter, no. Like I said, Taker has been on top of WWE even longer and people don't resent him for it.

 

It depends on the person, and outside of some cataclysmic level of bad booking/overexposure, I don't see many people clamouring to get Steve Austin off their TVs.

[rvd356]

It's simple to me, 95% of the HHHate comes from Trips marrying into the McMahon family and becoming his own booker. Let's just look at recent years:

 

2008- interjects himself into the Cena/Orton Mania main event which had its own thing going. "Takes on for the team" and makes himself the Champ of Smackdown to "bring up ratings". Books himself against hot(crowd heat) young star Jeff Hardy.

 

2010- beats young rising star Sheamus @ Mania clean as a sheet(show that millions view). Then puts him over at Extreme Rules which no one watched.

 

2011- puts himself in the Taker Streak Mania match after seeing the high quality performances that Taker had been pulling out @ Manias, when WWE desperately needs to give this rub(& job) to a young guy. Match was ok.

 

2011- Jumps on the CM Punk wave of popularity and swipes Punk's "revenge" feud with Nash(Punk never even TOUCHED Nash for screwing him over at Summerslam)....Also he squashes Punk on a PPV main event when Punk seriously needed to be established. You wouldn't see Hogan eat a pin in '84, interferance or not.

 

2012- Books himself with Taker in a HIAC which headlines over all title matches Danielson, Punk, Sheamus...guys who actually need the company to promote them on top, with Taker in a HIAC would have REALLY given them the rub too. Personally thought the H/Taker Cell match sucked.

 

2012- Giving him credit with H/Brock I. Great match, perfect booking and a hillarious crowd reaction BUT....

 

2013- Again Trips stays on the Lesnar bandwagon and beat him with ease(of COURSE in front of the giant Mania audience & returns the job @the small ER show).

 

Its weird watching s guy book his own legacy. If Austin did the same things all these years people would hate him too. Sure all these moments listed would have been way better w/ Steve but still. Hell people would hate Toshiaki Kawada if he would have married Steph & penned his own legacy, quality or not.

[Matt D]

World's worst Bill Watts.

[Stiva]

It's simple to me, 95% of the HHHate comes from Trips marrying into the McMahon family and becoming his own booker. Let's just look at recent years:

In 2009, he had that awful feud with Legacy where they contrived new ways for him to win 3 on 1 handicap matches every week after Orton was really hot after punting Vince. Though, the IED angle didn't help matters with that thing.

 

Speaking for me personally, I dislike HHH because he wants to work these long epic matches that he has no idea how to work and from the look of things, wants to be the one calling them. Putting this on top of the fact he has no idea how to make himself look vulnerable to be an effective face, really sucks at being a heel outside of hitting people with sledgehammers and grunting a lot and is basically kryptonite for any sort of enjoyable program, it's easy to see why Austin wouldn't be victim to these things. Austin as GM definitely suggests he might have went down that path but you'd like to think that Sheamus/Austin at Mania sees Sheamus win, albeit with Austin looking strong. I think Austin inserted into the Summer of Punk angle would at least see more entertaining promos and less clusterfuck angles with Kevin Nash. I think Orton punting Austin in the head would have resulted in better television. I think Austin/Taker at Mania would be better than HHH/Taker and wouldn't have meant Shawn Michaels masquerading as a shitty referee. At this point, we're getting into fantasy booking but I think Austin in all those programs would have been much more productive and helped those guys along more than HHH.

 

Plus, some more general points; the guy has to be the smartest guy in the room in every goddamn segment, his DX reunion stuff is PUTRID, his Raw run from 2002-5 was awful despite a few bright spots (Batista build, that period in 2004 when some new guys came over for fun tags each week). I think it's really a culmination of the last decade of pretty shitty stuff compounded with some frustration that he's presented (by himself or otherwise) as a legend beyond peer. At least with Austin, you have this body of work from when he was on top; Austin/Bret, Austin/Vince segments, Austin/Rock, Austin/Benoit and then the Hollywood Blondes stuff on top of that. Even if Austin did turn into a HHH-type politicking guy, I think a lot of people would go "ah but, he's got this, this and this" to defend it.

[JerryvonKramer]

his DX reunion stuff is PUTRID

I can't stand the original DX stuff. I was watching one of the Legends of Wrestling shows when they played the footage of them coming out as the Nation of Domination when HHH was The Rock.

 

I was forced to fast-forward it. My skin was crawling, so so cringeworthy. Someone so unfunny trying to be funny. David Brent in The Office levels of cringe.

[Matt D]

That was considered pretty hilarious at the time.

[Stiva]

his DX reunion stuff is PUTRID

I can't stand the original DX stuff. I was watching one of the Legends of Wrestling shows when they played the footage of them coming out as the Nation of Domination when HHH was The Rock.

 

I was forced to fast-forward it. My skin was crawling, so so cringeworthy. Someone so unfunny trying to be funny. David Brent in The Office levels of cringe.

 

It always makes me laugh when Waltman mentions in his shoots that they were the coolest guys on TV at the time. The 90s, man, hell of a decade.

[JerryvonKramer]

Don't think I've ever been against anything as much in my life as HHH in DX. It would be like Carlton Banks being a member of the Wu-Tang Clan. Actually, that gives DX too much credit. It would be like Carlton Banks being a member of 5ive. Apologies if that reference is too obscure for most here. Let's say Limp Bizkit.

[S.L.L.]

It's simple to me, 95% of the HHHate comes from Trips marrying into the McMahon family and becoming his own booker.

A lot of people who hate watching HHH be his own booker in WWE love watching Jerry Lawler be his own booker in Memphis. Jerry wielded just as much power in that setting as HHH does in his, but they love one and hate the other. So, no, it's not that simple. It would be very naive of me to say that doesn't play a factor at all, especially considering that HHH plays politics on a level that few ever dream of, and has arguably done less to deserve the level of power he has relative to the amount of power he has than any wrestler ever. But at the same time, if it were just about backstage politics, if people turned up their noses at every wrestler who played dirty backstage to get ahead...how many wrestlers would even be left to like? Because from everything I can tell, that's an almost universal trait amongst successful pro wrestlers.

 

Then again, HHH is tends to book himself to put his biggest flaws on display, so I guess you could argue his self-booking is the source of 95% of his hatred in the sense that he books himself very poorly. But no, the simple fact that he has the booking power in the first place does not explain it alone, just in part.

[Johnny Guitar]

Also with Austin. After years in Tennessee,Texas and WCW, he'd learnt to get heat and show ass with best. Which was a situation that HHH never really got the full experience of.

[JerryvonKramer]

I guess Dusty is the elephant lurking in the room here. Reading Meltzer in 88 and 89, it seems like a lot of hardcore fans were sick of him and pretty much hated him by that stage, despite his charisma levels.

 

However, I don't think the resentment against Dusty was as long lasting as it might have been because of those same charisma levels: easier to forgive a guy like that than I guy who is less likable.

 

With HHH, we have to say it's a combination of low charisma (disposition of people to not like him anyway), talent vs. position on roster (proportionally unfair) and self-booking (resentment of narcissism).

 

He's hitting three intuitive trigger points that are going to get people's backs up.

[Dylan Waco]

Biggest difference between Dusty and HHH is that Dusty was one of (if not) the greatest promos of all time, whereas HHH is one of the absolute worst promos of all time