How does Austin stand up as an all-timer amid the Attitude era backlash?

[BigBadMick]

Phew, bit of a mouthful there!

 

I've been reading a lot of Anti-attitude era sentiment on here lately. Or, if not anti-Attitude, at least you-had-to-be-there-Attitude.

 

If I'm correct in saying Attitude era at it's worst is accepted as 1998-99, how does Austin hold up as an all time great?

 

I ask because I never see Austin's standing diminished due to this timespan - did he do enough before and after to avoid falling in people's eyes?

 

Also, what about Undertaker, Rock and Foley? I could understand Undertaker having enough afterwards to remain in people's good graces, but the other two?

[El-P]

Austin, Rock and Foley's standing don't diminish despite the Attitude era because they were the legit great parts of that era (that is, before it went into complete shit in 99 when even those three couldn't escape the Russo bullshit). Taker was more a hit and miss and the fact he was involved with Kane so much surely has something to do with it, although the whole Ministry and Corporate Ministry stuff was brutal in itself.

[ButchReedMark]

Yeah, I think the main event scene of the Attitude era being pretty much the only part that holds up has done Steve Austin no disservice in how he's perceived, which is quite right as he was indeed great.

[Childs]

Go read the 1998 threads if you want to see some raving about Austin and the early Attitude Era. Austin was on fire as a performer, even if the neck injury had reduced him to a lesser in-ring wrestler. And he deserves every bit of recognition he's received for it. But what's really struck me is how much Vince exploded as a performer at the same time. In a year, he went from overblown announcer and semi-hidden power figure to all-time great heel. He played a huge role, for example, in elevating Foley to a guy the fans accepted as a threat to Stone Cold.

[iamthedoctor]

I always felt Rock had a better reception with fans during the Attitude era. While Stone Cold got some great reactions during 98/99 but once he had gone apart from the Backlash 2000 cameo once he came back he didnt get the same as what he once did.

[ButchReedMark]

I can't remember who said it here, but someone was of the opinion that when Austin returned in 2000 his face just didn't seem to fit like it used to, and I'm inclined to agree.

[BigBadMick]

I would argue that, regardless of being less over, Austin was better in-ring in 2001 than 1998-99.

[Childs]

I always felt Rock had a better reception with fans during the Attitude era. While Stone Cold got some great reactions during 98/99 but once he had gone apart from the Backlash 2000 cameo once he came back he didnt get the same as what he once did.

 

But you can't talk about the Attitude Era without talking about '98-'99. That's pizza without the cheese. Austin owned the fans at the dawn of the whole thing.

 

Later on, you're right. He was huge but not on the same level.

[ButchReedMark]

I would argue that, regardless of being less over, Austin was better in-ring in 2001 than 1998-99.

 

I'm not sure on that. I'd argue the increase in match quality in 2001 was more that he was put in more positions to have better matches in 2001 due to a higher quality of opponent in that year to what he had to work with in 1998-9, not on Austin himself being a better worker that year.

[BillThompson]

I loathe the Attitude Era, and there's very little work that impresses from that time period. Even guys like Austin and Foley who I really enjoy in the ring are shells of themselves during the Attitude Era. Sure, they were over, they brought in big crowds, huge ratings, and sold lots of merchandise. But where it matters to me, in the ring and in the angles, what came out of the Attitude Era was trash. Now, that being said it doesn't hurt Austin or Foley that much because of what they did before, and the little they did after.

[Sidebottom]

I can't remember who said it here, but someone was of the opinion that when Austin returned in 2000 his face just didn't seem to fit like it used to, and I'm inclined to agree.

 

I cited this when somebody was asking the best and worst of 2000 a while back.

 

RE the subject, look at Austin's work during that era and it holds up nicely. I watched Austin vs Dude Love from Over the Edge 98 the other day on the network; it was an absolute hoot from start to finish. The match was hard hitting, and all the bells and whistles went down a treat: Austin knew how to balance things perfectly. I also watched Backlash 1999 the other week: his match with Rock was far superior to their Wrestlemania match the month prior IMO.

[MoS]

I always felt Rock had a better reception with fans during the Attitude era. While Stone Cold got some great reactions during 98/99 but once he had gone apart from the Backlash 2000 cameo once he came back he didnt get the same as what he once did.

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.

[DR Ackermann]

More people identified with Austin's rebel character than the Rock's. From my experience there were a number of wrestling fans that didn't like the Rock at the time whereas it seemed like everyone loved Austin. Also Steve Austin was the guy bringing the (non)fans in so that they could eventually become fans of the Rock.

[stomperspc]

I am about three-quarters of the way through the 1998 yearbook. Austin has been awesome the entire year. He was one of the most over wrestlers ever (on a national scale) during that time period. While Vince is incredible as a heel during that same period, re-watching the 1998 stuff it is clear that a major reason Vince got over so strongly in the first place was because Austin was so over as a baby face. His promos were great the entire year, his presence & character were virtually unmatched, and he is really, really over. All of his matches shown on the year book have been just fine as well.

 

Saying that the Attitude Era "doesn't hurt" Austin's standing that much is difficult for me to wrap my head around. He was made during that era. It not only didn't hurt his standing, it raises it to the point that he is even in discussion as one of the greatest of all-time.

 

There are plenty of reasons to dislike the Attitude Era (more and more come to light the deeper you get into 1998), but Austin is one of the brightest of the bright spots.

[DMJ]

The Attitude Era backlash would have to be so tremendously on the "being contrary-just-to-be-contrary" scale for it to hurt Austin, in my eyes.

 

I understand and totally agree with the argument that the Attitude Era wasn't perfect or near-perfect and the more one dissects it, the more negatives appear.

 

But it doesn't change how engaging the Austin/McMahon angle was. You can downplay the t-shirt sales and the mainstream success and the sellout-after-sellout crowds and say "Hey, just 'cuz its popular, doesn't mean its good" all you want, but good god, to not consider Austin a thoroughly awe-inspiring character who cut passionate, great promos and delivered action-packed, captivating main event matches is to be willfully ignorant.

 

Austinmania, his promos and in-ring body of work from late 96' and on, would "hold up" had it happened in any era, even if it was just in one territory decades earlier. The fact that he DEFINED an era, on the national stage, means his footing near the top of the all-time greats list is set in stone.

[BigBadMick]

Ok ok, don't shoot!

 

Can I ask though, how many good matches did Austin have on Raw in 1998-99? I can think of a few, but tend to remember those years as very angle-heavy.

 

I like to think of my all time greats having good matches on more than just PPVs. And I know it's not Austin's fault if he didn't get the opportunity to have matches, but that in itself would make me think he's thus an all timer in spite of, rather than because of, 1998-99....

[stomperspc]

Ok ok, don't shoot!

 

Can I ask though, how many good matches did Austin have on Raw in 1998-99? I can think of a few, but tend to remember those years as very angle-heavy.

 

I like to think of my all time greats having good matches on more than just PPVs. And I know it's not Austin's fault if he didn't get the opportunity to have matches, but that in itself would make me think he's thus an all timer in spite of, rather than because of, 1998-99....

That was a function of the booking and layout of the TV show at the time. He wasn't given many opportunities to have truely great matches on TV (although he had plenty of fine TV matches). Based on how he wrestled on PPV during the time and in shorter TV matches, I have no problem believing that 1998 and 1999 Austin would have had a bunch of great TV matches with 2001 or 2014 WWE booking and RAW format.

 

1998 & 1999 Austin was a good worker in a promotion that didn't place much emphasize on having quality matches. Nonetheless, he has still did enough in 1998 to be considered one of the better wrestlers of the at year.

[C.S.]

Austin's status as an all-time great can't be disputed IMO. He morphed from "Stunning" Steve in WCW to "Stone Cold" in the WWF. Not only did he completely change his personality, he also changed his in-ring style - especially after his neck injury. His style post-injury was different, but I wouldn't say it was worse. He was still producing high quality at a rapid rate.

 

Very few wrestlers are as versatile as he was.

 

Not only that, but he was on or near the top for many years, and as consistent as anyone else during that time. He never got the push in WCW, but he had a very successful run there as a high profile upper midcarder with the Dangerous Alliance, Hollywood Blonds, etc. And no need to go into how successful he was as Stone Cold.

[iamthedoctor]

For me the only thing I hated about Austin's change from WCW when he wrestled to WWF's version of the Stone Cold character was he was more of a brawler and used more closed fists in matches. Probably because he was limited or not I dont know why but his wrestling skills in WCW were alot better than WWF.

[cm funk]

When I started watching WCW "Stunning" Steve was immediately one of my favorites. I was a kid who preferred heels, and he was so cocky and charismatic while doing all the perfect heel work of bumping his ass off and stooging when he had to, and being a complete dick as well. I loved it. I remember being so bummed and upset when he was jobbed out in the early Hogan years, and couldn't believe that a guy that awesome was jobbing to Hacksaw in 19 seconds or whatever it was. Then when he showed up in ECW it was cool as shit, and when he went to WWF and debuted in the Rumble (at the same time as Vader, another favorite who got jobbed out in Hogan era WCW) I marked out so big for it. And his first 6 months or so were a bit rough (DiBiase was a shitty manager and Austin was miscast) but damn when the Stone Cold shit started happening he was an instant star. I still remember seeing those real early black and white promos, and he was calling out Roddy Piper, and I was just instantly so into the character. Bret Hart had been one of my favorites for years at that point, and Austin calling out Bret when he was on his sabbatical after WMXII, and Bret returning like "fuck you, stop saying shit" and that great Survivor Series match, which led to Rumble 97, which led to the I Quit match, which led to the long and awesome Austin v. heel Bret w/ The Foundation feud......such great stuff.

 

99 era WWF on rewatch is pretty shitty, but at the time it was over as hell and people were coming out of the woodwork watching it and digging it. By then with his various injuries Austin didn't have a lot of time left in the ring. He worked for most of that year, but by August/Sept he had to go have the fusion surgery and was out for a year. When he came back in '00 they dropped the ball on the angle/storyline big time. Nobody wanted to see heel Rikishi, nobody wanted "I did it for the Rock" and HHH was already the hardest pushed guy in the company and didn't need that "I was the mastermind behind all of this" shit. That Foley investigating who ran over Stone Cold crap was brutal as well. I've never even watched the "3 Stages of Hell" match because by that point I was so turned off by the product. A lot of people call Austin's heel turn at WMX17 as "the end of the Attitude Era" but to me it was much earlier than that. SummerSlam 2000, or that crap in the fall when Austin came back, it was drizzling shits and when I noticed my friends just tuning out on it and losing interest

[cm funk]

Also, 2001 Austin is ridiculous in retrospect. "The Bionic Redneck". he came back with a huge chip on his shoulder, pissed off, in great shape, and worked his ass off. Those matches with Benoit and Angle where he's taking all the suplexes and headdrops. All the nutty bumping he would do, like take a punch and backbody fall and flip himself over.........hahhahaa. It was great stuff, but knowing that he was on borrowed time on that neck and was retired by mid '02 aside from a comeback match at WM with Rock where he had a panic attack and was hospitalized the night before the match......

 

I still enjoy 2001 Austin (Austin-Angle at SS is one of my favorite matches) but I have conflicted feelings watching that stuff back

[Tim Cooke]

 

I loathe the Attitude Era, and there's very little work that impresses from that time period. Even guys like Austin and Foley who I really enjoy in the ring are shells of themselves during the Attitude Era. Sure, they were over, they brought in big crowds, huge ratings, and sold lots of merchandise. But where it matters to me, in the ring and in the angles, what came out of the Attitude Era was trash. Now, that being said it doesn't hurt Austin or Foley that much because of what they did before, and the little they did after.

 

I disagree with this a lot, especially after making my way through the 1998 yearbook.

 

I've watched the 1996, 1997, and three quarters of the 1998 yearbooks over the last couple of years. Austin, prior to the Summerslam 97 neck issue, was very sound technically, but he hadn't put it all together yet. There isn't a whole lot of difference between Steve Austin 1994 against Sting on WCWSN and Steve Austin vs. Bret Hart from Survivor Series 1996. By the time 1998 rolls around, his bumping and brawling is still all there, only now he is over as much as anyone in the history of US wrestling and working some of the most solid angles that the WWF ever ran.

 

As for Foley, I've never been a huge fan, but I don't see this shell of himself in 1998/1999 as compared to what he did in prior years.

 

I value in ring work as well and I'm certainly not claiming that WWF was producing MOTYC's on TV throughout 1998 but most of the Austin TV matches are solidly worked. And where they really excel is in the angles, as everything from the night after WrestleMania really comes together throughout the summer with the Austin/McMahon feud. The 4 month stretch from April 98 - August 1998 is some of the best wrestling storytelling I have seen. It is very Memphisesque, only on the national stage. If you don't like Memphis, I guess I can see you not liking the Austin/McMahon week to week build. The 4/13/98 RAW is maybe the single best job the WWF ever did in building up and hyping a match, even with the bait and switch at the end.

 

 

Can I ask though, how many good matches did Austin have on Raw in 1998-99?

 

So far throughout 1998, he hasn't had any blow away Raw matches, but everything has at least been average. Working with Kane and a still unover Foley certainly doesn't help that.

 

But if TV matches really matter so much, Jerry Lawler and Bill Dundee wouldn't be all time greats. Most of their TV stuff is very solid but it was the arena matches that brought them to the next level. I just don't think that looking at TV matches to rate a guy is the best approach.

[BigBadMick]

'But if TV matches really matter so much, Jerry Lawler and Bill Dundee wouldn't be all time greats. Most of their TV stuff is very solid but it was the arena matches that brought them to the next level. I just don't think that looking at TV matches to rate a guy is the best approach.'

 

Maybe, Tim, but I come back to the point that Austin had much better tv matches prior to and after 1998-99. I think if Ric Flair had a two year spell in the 80s were his in-ring tv output was this low, big questions would be asked......

[Loss]

I don't know that to be true for sure. What are Flair's standout TV matches in 1988-1989, barring Clash specials? I'm not saying they aren't there at all, but I don't think they are completely absent for Austin either.

[Tim Cooke]

Flair had the pre-Clash TV match with Sting in Feb 88 and that's all I remember off the top of my head in terms of anything bigger than a squash. In 1989 he had the Muta match later in the year and probably 1-2 I am forgetting.