'Stone Cold' Steve Austin

[elliott]

1 hour ago, ohtani's jacket said:

Austin is a contender for best in the world in 2001, although personally Low Ki is my favorite US wrestler from that year. I'm not a huge fan of WCW Austin, so I can't really agree with him being the best in the 90s. I guess if you're a huge Steve Austin fan he was. There's definitely a lot of merit to his WCW work if you're into it. 

Low Ki is a great call for 2001

[elliott]

1 hour ago, strobogo said:

Austin was also better before they got paired up. And during. And after.

care to elaborate? I don't think anyone would argue Austin was better after the Blondes because of Pillman's injuries. But early 90s Brian Pillman was frigging awesome. 

[strobogo]

17 hours ago, elliott said:

care to elaborate? I don't think anyone would argue Austin was better after the Blondes because of Pillman's injuries. But early 90s Brian Pillman was frigging awesome. 

I don't think Pillman ever really pulled it together. Dude was just sloppy all around, imo. He did a lot of stuff but none of it was ever clean, transitions to and from high spots were never fluid, always looked like he was thinking about his spots, selling is always wonky, promos were never good even as Loose Cannon Pillman. I've always found him to be very overrated as an in ring guy and as a character. The Loose Cannon period in particular might be the single most overrated thing in wrestling lore. That shit was Pillman acting like a complete cartoon for a couple of weeks while Bischoff would say things like "He's really pushing it" and then he was gone.

[CheapPop1999]

Austin is a top 30 contender. His WCW stuff doesn't really do it for me, he gets lost in the shuffle in that fantastic early 90s roster and in the ring, he's a bit boring and generic for me. His raw peak from like 1997-2001 is pretty unreal and he's one of the few guys ever in America who brought a Tyson-esque intensity and unpredictability to wrestling TV. His matches with Bret are phenomenal, the WrestleMania 14 clash with Shawn is fantastic, the X-Seven match with The Rock, the Savio strap match, the Two-Man Power Trip tag, it's all amazing. He got a legitimately good match out of Vince McMahon in 99. His later career heel stuff doesn't rustle my jimmies too much, but I see the appeal. Either way, even with me not liking the early or late career, Austin is just flat out undeniable for a list like this.

[CheapPop1999]

 @ 1:11:12 there is a match between Austin/Rude and Sting/Pillman that is literally one of the greatest Austin performances I've ever seen - he is in full blown Buddy Rose insane stooging and cowering mode to avoid Pillman, complete with a great bit where he gets backhanded by Sting all the way to another corner, spots Pillman and leaps back towards Sting and has to roll out, before later on accidentally tagging Pillman, taking a punch right to the head that he bumps off the apron for onto his face, needing revival by Col. Parker via handkerchief waving. Just a masterclass.

[MoS]

Austin, Dusty and Bruno are the American wrestlers absolutely best at incorporating their gimmick/character into their matches, and their matches being a thousand times better due to it. You watch their matches and you immediately know what they are supposed to be - and Stunning Steve Austin is diametrically opposite to Stone Cold Steve Austin, and his matches are worked that way. This is a trait severely lacking in modern wrestling and modern wrestlers. 

[Tetsujin]

I would add Kurt Angle to that list and probably as #1, but some people would disagree on the "their matches being thousand times better due to it" part.

[club]

14 hours ago, MoS said:

Austin, Dusty and Bruno are the American wrestlers absolutely best at incorporating their gimmick/character into their matches, and their matches being a thousand times better due to it. You watch their matches and you immediately know what they are supposed to be - and Stunning Steve Austin is diametrically opposite to Stone Cold Steve Austin, and his matches are worked that way. This is a trait severely lacking in modern wrestling and modern wrestlers. 

This perfectly encapsulates what I love about Randy Savage. Can definitely see this with Austin too. Can you elaborate a bit on why you find Dusty and Bruno so strong in this regard?

[MoS]

Bruno was a 275-pound strongman but due to both his shoot background and his wrestling story, he was often a folk hero who would find himself the underdog against impossible odds, but would find a way to fight back and get on top. The way he threw punches and kicks, the way he would show his fire, the way he would sell - even if in his most famous matches, it was very little - everything he did in the ring, he absolutely felt and came across like a hero of the masses who came in massive numbers cuz they adored him. Every single thing he did told you clearly who he was and what he was supposed to be. 

Same with Dusty. Dusty was also a man of the masses, but he had a different kind of swag, he was far more flamboyant, but was ultimately still a working class hero, and the way he would throw his elbows, would sometimes hit crossbodies, would sell when he was locked in the figure four or when he was getting his ass handed to him by the Andersons and the Koloffs, everything encapsulates who he is supposed to be. 

We talk about matches needing to be distinctive and memorable, just the way these people approached wrestling immediately took a big step towards accomplishing that. 

[club]

Thanks for expanding on this. It's a really good point, and would agree the idea is lacking in most modern wrestling. Maybe most wrestling full stop. It's also an interesting way to explore the idea of being a 'good' worker. 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

In the running for my number one spot. The guy was just born to be a professional wrestler, and every day I get down on my knees and thank Mrs Stone Cold for bringing that little kid from Edna, Texas to the Dallas Sportatorium to let him dream.

In ring classics, legendary promos, iconic look, incredible versatility and unmatched impact on the business and art of professional wrestling. His only detriment is that the mind was willing, but the body was weak. Injuries hampered and eventually prematurely ended a GOAT career. If he had the fortune of wrestling as long as the other old timers like Taker, Shawn and HHH, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

[MoS]

Cross-posting from the GWE reaction thread:

At the outset, I must say that while Austin is my favourite wrestler ever and I became a fan because of him, Hansen is my 2nd favourite, and I ranked Austin 10 and Hansen 4, and with the careers they had, no way should Hansen be below Austin, although I feel Austin could have surpassed him if his neck and knees did not allow him to do a mix of brawling and a lot of holds at his babyface peak. 

But Austin was an all-time great worker at not just projecting his gimmick in his matches, he also developed an ability at his peak to raise the drama and the stakes of his matches through his work in the ring. It isn't just the middle fingers and the trash talking, it's the way he sells, the way he holds matches, no matter how terribly booked and short, together through his selling and his underrated, how to put it, his kinetic energy into the service of his matches (Hansen was better at the latter, but Austin's selling was better imo), the way he is always scratching and clawing at his opponent while also selling the accumulated damage. His sense of timing was absolutely GOAT-level, and he had (has?) a mind for wrestling every bit as good as Foley or Bret had. The Attitude Era was shit for wrestling, but Austin still had great matches with Dude Love, Rock, some very good TV matches with Shamrock, making Road Dogg bearable, having some of the best matches of Hunter's career even though a bunch of them were terribly overbooked. No matter the match though, he would feel like a transcendental all -time great in all of them. I also think his First Blood match with Undertaker in 1999 is great, and his Raw match with Kane where he regained his title a day after losing it is better than it has any right to be.

Unlike Rock, Austin protected his spot a lot more, so he didn't often give a lot to his opponents on TV, but he was one of the absolute best at both garnering sympathy for himself and showing babyface fire, even though his punches were never great - but late in his career, fit his gimmick perfectly - and his stomps got terrible as his knees went to shit. It's his ability to be tremendous at transitions, connective tissues, his selling and babyface fire and comeback that got him to rise above his injuries and booking and yes, sometimes his mechanics to be not just a top draw, but a folk hero in an era where everyone turned all the time. His comeback in 2000 was botched obscenely, first with Rikishi and then - incredible how inevitable this feels when discussing WWF/E booking of the last 30 years - with Hunter, but he still had some tremendous performances. He has a match with Benoit in 2000 that is very good, and a fun Eddie squash. His work in the 6-man HITC in December stood out to me the most when I rewatched it. His babyface work in the 2001 Royal Rumble is again all-time, and in hindsight should have been the first and ideally the last and persuasive warning for Vince McMahon to not turn him heel against The Rock. 

As a heel, he was tremendous. The way he worked as Stunning Steve Austin is different from how he worked Bret, and the way he worked Bret in Survivor Series 1996, and the way he worked Bret in Survivor Series 1996 is different from his work in Canadian Stampede, all of which are completely different from his all-time heel work against Angle and Benoit in 2001. Now of course the heel turn in 2001 did not work and yes, it sounds very LinkedIn-esque "My biggest weakness is that I care too much and take too much ownership" to say that the only reason his heel turn did not work was because fans loved him too much (being booked to play 2nd fiddle both to Vince and - again!! - Hunter did not help), but it really does feel true in his case. His actual work was tremendous, both in tags and in singles, with fantastic matches with Benoit and some of the best matches in WWF history with Angle, and some great great stuff with RVD too. He basically became permanently out of shape in 2002, but he still had some really fun stuff with Flair, although the booking was shit, and then he signed off the first time with arguably the best match in his WM trilogy with Rock in 2003, and then 19 years later, uplifted his match with Owens to a tremendous degree with his projection of his gimmick (or "aura" as the kids would say) in his match with Owens in a match that had no right to be as good as it was, and I believe it was better than both the Rock-Roman tag and Roman-Cody rematch 2 years later. Everything he did was awesome because he was awesome, he could take you for a ride in his matches in a way almost no one could, although Hansen did do it better for longer and again, with the careers they had, Hansen should be higher. 

Austin > Bret though and I agree with the rankings in that regard. I had Bret at 44. Bret was tremendous, and his greatest strength was how good he executed both his offence and how he bumped, and how "correctly" he sold. He truly was the Excellence of Execution. It's funny that we now (correctly) praise him for his ability to make everything logical and believable, when Bret's original appeal was that he was an uber-workrate guy with a lot of moves. By itself, "making everything look logical" would never have been enough for Meltzer to put his name for the inaugural hall of fame. If you follow @Loss's invaluable playlists, you would know that Meltzer in the 80s would get letters from readers talking about how 10 years before, the wrestlers did not do as many moves as Bret Hart does, but they made everyone believe and heightened the drama in their matches in a way Bret did not do, and at that time they were absolutely right, because the Hart Foundation are not particularly great in my opinion.

He became so much better and kept improving in fact till 1997, his peak year ever in the ring imo, but he could never heighten the drama in his matches by his own work the way Austin could; he needed an opponent or a stage to truly bring that out of him. Austin was someone you could put in the main event with the idea that you could ultimately book him to have a stadium match with the right opponent; Bret was someone you could choose to safely put in a major spot/main event of a booked stadium match or against a really hot guy needing a hot main event program, knowing that he would rise to the occasion. Bret was mechanically much better than Austin, far better punches and kicks, could sell more "correctly" and was better at long-term selling in the match, but he was not as good at keeping the crowd both sympathetic while also thinking he is a complete badass and losing their shit for his offence. I re-watched some of his major face performances - Perfect Summerslam 1991, Shawn Survivor Series 1992, Razor Rumble 1993, and while the Perfect match was a great, great match and the other two were good-very good, I never felt he truly reached all-time heights in any of them as a babyface In contrast, the Summerslam match with Davey felt much better than I was expecting going in, partly because Bret is great shit-talking the Brits while beating up Davey. I have to say that his work in Canada in 1997 is an exception in that regard. His 1997 work is definitely all-time. 

[DMJ]

I have Austin at #2, but I'm not going to go crazy defending my view as much as I'd like to at least pose a theory about why he did so well this time around.

I think Austin's appeal may reflect a "poptimist" vote . Poptimism, to those new to the term, refers to a shift in music criticism in the 2000s when "serious" music journalists became increasingly celebratory and positive about pop music, specifically acts like Justin Timberlake or Beyonce who, in the late 90s, had been generally maligned as "disposable" music performers for ignorant teenagers. Poptimism argues that commercial appeal does not necessarily mean unimaginative, bland, or without merit. It has since been applied to film and television.

To the hyper-critical, super-learned fan, Steve Austin might not seem like a legitimate No.1 candidate. At the peak of his popularity, the matches he was most famous for were also the exact opposite of what many serious wrestling fans consider great wrestling. He mastered sports-entertainment, the worst version of pro-wrestling. So much of the character was what he did outside the ring - beer trucks, crushing cars, flipping the bird - and, to the serious wrestling fan, its all fluff. Then, when the bell rings, you get crowd-brawling in lieu of scientific wrestling, more bird-flipping, and a million-and-a-half run-ins. It's all so low brow.

And yet, for lots and lots of people, it's also AWESOME. And why wouldn't it be? Anyone who listened to Austin's podcast (the original run) knows that this guy has a brilliant mind for wrestling. And, like any genius, Austin wisely plucked elements from his idols to create the Austin character. Is Austin's relentless, reckless defiance not Terry Funk? Did Austin not see Hansen's trademark bullying stomps and think "What if I did those, in rapid succession, in the corner"? Were his big right hands not indebted to Jerry Lawler? In his athletic prime, Austin's bumps were straight out of the Buddy Rose playbook.
In no case did Austin improve or better any of these things - I doubt Austin would ever claim he did - but he did bring them together into a PG-13 character that turned an entire wrestling company around. From 97' through 99', Austin was the most entertaining, captivating pro-wrestler on television, easily the biggest star the wrestling world had seen since a decade earlier.

There was some discussion on the GWE Reaction Thread that high voters on Austin "didn't get the assignment." Hogwash. In the very same thread, there was lengthy debate about how Bryan Danielson should've approached his match with Triple H based on their storyline. Austin's in-ring performance is inextricably linked to the context of his matches (built up by storylines and promos). Against Bret Hart, he was cool and calculated, a mirror of the Hitman. Against the Undertaker and Foley, essentially mercenaries hired by an evil boss, he treated the matches like brawls. When he finally got Vince alone in a cage, he sought punishment, savoring the opportunity to beat the hell out of his nemesis. 

But Austin's case doesn't start there and I'm not sure why he's being called a "peak" candidate. In the early 90s, he was already a consistent highlight on WCW broadcasts. There's Clash 18 with Rude vs. Sting and Steamboat, Clash 20 against Steamboat 1-on-1, teaming up with Zybysko against Windham and Rhodes at SuperBrawl II, the Hollywood Blondes stuff, the matches with Dustin and War Games...if wrestling was the Oscars, Austin might've been a Best Supporting Actor nominee for all those years. And, of course, looking at who he was working with, Austin continued to soak up knowledge to the point that, years down the road, he would use those same dozen ingredients to create crowd-pleasing mini-blockbusters on a weekly basis. I would never put Austin on the shortlist of "greatest TV workers," but how else could one describe the guy who anchored 4-5 segments per sold-out Raw, for 2 years, if not wrestling in the televised main event often wrestling in an untelevised "dark" match after the cameras cut off? Who was That Guy?

And, again, the naysayers want to discount Austin's remarkable popularity by arguing it isn't a valid criterion. So what if Austin was so popular that he almost single-handedly turned the tide of the Monday Night Wars (which, before Austin's rise, was a war that the WWE were very much losing in terms of TV ratings)? But isn't an essential element of what makes a great pro-wrestler their ability to connect to the crowd? Their drawing power? To be extremely cynical, if wrestling is, at its core, a "carny" business, isn't its most important, most credible metric the ability to separate the "marks" from their money? Austin did this as good or better than any wrestler in US history. We watched his show, bought tickets when he came to town, wore T-shirts with his mottos and logos because we connected with Steve Austin, who can only be described as a pro-wrestler.

"But popularity has nothing to do with in-ring performance," his detractors say. My response would be that this is looking at things backwards. Austin's popularity came from his in-ring performances, not the other way around. Sure, the Austin 3:16 promo is an integral part of Stone Cold's origin story, but, as highlighted above, Austin didn't fall out of the sky in 1996. He had built up a reputation for being a very good in-ring worker already. Even to fans who only knew his WWE work, before and in the months immediately after King of the Ring 96' it was clear that Austin was way, way, way more exciting to watch than any of the other young stars the WWE was pushing at the time - Marc Mero, Savio Vega, an arrogant blue blood named Hunter Hearst Helmsley, Ahmed Johnson. There's a reason Bret Hart wanted to work with him for his return match over Helmsley or Ron Simmons or The Sultan. Bret was seeing the same undeniable future that lots and lots of wrestling fans saw. Austin wasn't just a good promo - he was a terrific and very smart worker, one who would end up having to adapt his style considerably but only become more popular for it. It's yet another attribute/accolade that exhibits Austin's skill. The fact that, when asked to reflect on these things, Austin is usually humble or gives off a workmanlike attitude that he was simply "doing the best he could in the circumstances" makes it easy to ignore just how smart of a worker he was.

Austin made being the most popular, most beloved wrestler of his generation by a wide margin look easy. So easy, in fact, that there are voters who either can't see how good he really was or are willing to twist logic to explain away what their eyes see when they hear the glass shatter.

[GOTNW]

I think a more realistic comparison with Austin, rather than try to pretend that he is some sort of Rikidozan-Santo-Londos-Hogan-Inoki-Onita-Rock figure which just had to succeed the way he did (whether it be in a wrestling ring, politics or business) is to look at other canonically great brawlers in the US tradition.

So, you would compare Austin to Terry Funk, Jerry Lawler, Ted DiBiase, Dick Murdoch, Greg Valentine, Bill Dundee, Sgt. Slaughter, Roddy Piper, Dusty Rhodes, Terry Gordy, Bruiser Brody, Wahoo McDaniel, Dutch Mantell and so forth.

I think it's pretty fair to say that, once you strip him of the WWE propaganda, the pyro, the entrance music, the highlights; if you look at just the substance, there isn't really some gigantic difference in charisma, personality and promo ability between a lot of abovementioned wrestlers and Austin. In fact, I'm sure a lot of the old-heads would argue that at least some of them were better at projecting pure aura than Austin.

Then you have the question of the actual in ring material - how does Austin compete (whether it be in peak, consistency or quantity - pick your poison) with all of the abovementioned workers?

In my estimation, not particularly good. The strongest advantage Austin has in direct comparison is that all of those workers worked an outdated style, while at least some of Austin's matches were enhanced with furniture, which has since become a staple of WWE. I know this reads like a retarded argument to some of you pensioners at first (Terry Funk also used chairs!) but it is a legitimate reason why some younger fans can understand Austin's matches straight away, while they look at something like a Ted DiBiase brawl and think "this isn't anything special". I was one of them, and attention spans don't seem to be getting longer in the next generations. The structure of the Steve Austin vs The Rock no-DQ main event is something modern WWE has inherited and still cherishes, whereas actual 80s US brawling is probably as distinct to younger viewers as Lucha Libre brawling is.

The last argument you can have for Austin is that many of the wrestlers I mentioned above should be disqualified on moral grounds, since they were bad people. But one could also then rightly question celebrating the work of a serial woman-beater.

 

Instead of retelling Austin's career for the 1500th time or comparing him with another WWE main eventer, I'd like to see some of Austin's believers explain how exactly is he better than, say, Dutch Mantell or Wahoo McDaniel. Or Stan Hansen. Or Perro Aguayo. Unless the argument invokes you not appreciating entire styles, I don't really see it.

[DMJ]

I haven't seen enough Dutch Mantell or Wahoo McDaniel. I would say that I do have Terry Funk as #1 on my GWE list.

Here's how he ranks against Stan Hansen for me, though - and I'm a Hansen fan who had him on my GWE list. I'll also preface this by saying that my criterion are my criterion. There was some discussion on the Reaction thread that certain voters "got it wrong" when they included things like promo ability or performance in angles. I've been here awhile now and participated in the 2016 poll and I do not recall any real parameters as to what can/cannot be used to rate or rank wrestlers. Maybe I missed it. I took "Greatest Wrestler Ever" to be a fairly broad concept and my criterion reflect that.

Average Match Score: I've reviewed 79 Austin matches and only 22 Hansen matches, which, mathematically, makes this criteria a bit less valid. That being said, Austin earned an average match rating (again, totally admittedly subjective) of 3.18-out-of-5, while Hansen earned a score of 3.02. There are likely lots and lots of great Hansen matches I have not seen. There are probably not all that many great Austin matches I have not seen. I'm not going to award a "point" to either.

Influence/Impact: Obviously, this is one of those things where some voters are automatically going to say "Well, that wasn't the point." I get that. I think the influence/impact a wrestler has on the industry is fair game. Austin gets the point from me.

Tag Work: Hansen is great in tags. But so is Austin. I'll give the point to Hansen.

Carrying Ability: This is a category where my lack of knowledge of Hansen might hurt him. Having watched so much of Austin's career, though, I've seen him bring audiences to their feet against some pretty boring or one-dimensional workers - Kane, Vince McMahon, Big Show, the Outlaws - and give some guys their best WWE matches (Savio Vega comes to mind). Point to Austin.

Reliability: This one is a tie. Cue up a Hansen match and you're likely to see something cool. Cue up an Austin match and you're just as likely to see something cool. If you want to watch some fun wrestling, you can rely on both guys to deliver it.

Heel/Face/Character Versatility: Another point to Austin. Again, I could be off base here because my knowledge of Hansen is fairly limited to him being a ruthless badass in Japan and him being a heel in NWA/WCW. Austin, over the course of his career, showed a very respectable amount of versatility, not only as a heel in WCW and then in the WWE in 96' and then as a Babyface from then on, but also changing up his wrestling style over time. 

Peaks (Were They The Best In The World At Any Time?): This is going to be controversial because this is sort of another influence/impact question, a criteria that has more to do with positioning or opportunity than it does with a wrestler's in-ring ability, which, according to some is the most important aspect of determining the Greatest Wrestler Ever. So, let's throw out the fact that Steve Austin was the most popular wrestler in the US (world?) from 1997-to-1999 and arguably longer. Was Austin the best wrestler in the world at any of those times? No, but neither was Hansen at any point in his career. Was Austin the best wrestler in his company at any of those times? I'm going to say he was at least #2 behind Shawn or Bret at some point (and maybe Owen). Was Hansen ever the best worker in NWA? In WCW? In AJPW? Was he ever #2? I honestly can't answer that question definitively so I'm just going to throw out this category.

So, just to recap, Austin leads 3-1 having thrown out some criterias as either ties or admitting I don't know.

Charisma: Another tie. Though, I'd probably lean towards Austin if I had a gun to my head. Hansen has a ton of charisma and aura, don't get me wrong, but Austin was such a magnetic, captivating performer that he was the centerpiece of an entire company for years. Hansen was very, very charismatic but I don't see the range that Austin had. Still, no point awarded.

Longevity: Hansen takes this one. 3-2. Though, just to note, longevity is another "controversial" criterion to some. To these voters, who want to strictly look at what happens between bells, whether a wrestler competes for 5 years, 10 years, 15, or 20 shouldn't really matter. I think having high-end matches over decades is the mark of a Greatest Wrestler Ever candidate and Hansen had high-end matches across multiple decades while Austin really just had the 90s.

Offense: Hansen ties it up. 3-3. 

Bumping/Selling/Athleticism: Austin wins this point for me, but maybe, again, that's based on my limited viewing of Hansen's career comparatively. With Austin, I can always point to the Stunning Steve/Hollywood Blondes years. With Hansen, he's obviously a good seller, but at 6'4'' and 300 pounds, you're not going to see much pinballing. It also didn't fit his character (based on what I've seen). 

 

Based on my criterion, Austin narrowly beats Hansen 4-3 with multiple categories either being ties or thrown out.

Ultimately, I think what it comes down to is, based on my admittedly limited viewing, Austin showed more versatility across his career. Stan Hansen is a great brawler and maybe even the best brawler of all time, but Austin was a very, very good brawler and, in his prime, a very, very good mechanic/technician who proved to be both a great heel and a great babyface.