Steve Austin or Dustin Rhodes

[goodhelmet]

One is the biggest star in wrestling. One is one of the greatest tag wrestlers of all time. One has been wrestling for over 25 years. One had his career cut short. Two more Texans to sink your teeth into.

[Tim Cooke]

Austin was too good to pass up voting for, if just for his 1997-1999 run. Goldust has longevity easily but if I had to take just one, prime Steve Austin would move on.

[ButchReedMark]

Dustin Rhodes is in my favourite 20 wrestlers of all time. Austin's great, but he's not that great. Rhodes had all of 1990- March 1995, then multiple other fun runs over the next 20 years (I even enjoyed his TNA run in 2004 as the Lone Star), I don't think Austin just has the numbers to match up.

[goodhelmet]

I thought this one would be interesting because each has strengths that the other doesn't that is going to determine where they end up on a ballot. What do you value... big main events (Austin), multiple great tag team runs (Dustin), huge draw but short run on top (Austin), never a main eventer but around for 25 years (Rhodes).

[goc]

I never hated a heel the way I hated Goldust in 1996. I have never been so excited to see someone wreck a heel as when Ahmed Johnson kicked his ass. Then the Booker T/Goldust team was GREAT. Some of the best comedy WWE has ever done and really good matches at a time when Raw was in the shitter.

 

I am just going to assume the criteria here is "Who do you like more?" and pick Goldust.

[Matt D]

I voted for Dustin, but in general I wish he had a better resume of heel work. I like him vs Michaels in 96 on house shows and I think his matches vs Ahmed (especially Ahmed. He got such amazing heat in that match, not even doing much at all) and Piper are both interesting performances but that's about it from that run. There's not a ton (or the opportunity for a ton) in early 98 or in 99. His early 00s return was mainly against RVD which is about as frustrating as you'd expect. The less said about Black Reign the better. And then there's last year, which wasn't bad by any means, but I just wish there was more.

 

I have a theory that he's not as compelling on top as a heel as he ought to be because he was so good working from underneath as a face. Because of that he thinks that it's not necessary to do a ton. He's up against a litany of guys not even close to being as good as he was as a face though.

[WingedEagle]

This is a really great comp. Objectively I know I could write out a much longer list of good Dustin matches, and his list of great matches might be longer as well. But we're not here to be completely objective and there's no way I'd pass on an Austin career comp for Dustin's so he takes it.

[Dylan Waco]

I want to go back and watch some 2001 Austin before the vote is due, but I picked Dustin here without a second thought. I just think he was a more impressive worker. What hurts Austin with me is that I don't like his WCW run nearly as much as some people do. It's not that he was bad there, but I thought he peaked at good during that period, and at times he was just there. Every year he and Dustin shared in that promotion I thought Dustin was considerably better. In fact I thought Austin had his best singles match in WCW with Dustin at Halloween Havoc 91. Hell I also think Dustin was better in 1990 v. Ted than Austin was v. Chris Adams.

 

While it is true that Austin had a better run in the WWF, and has the higher profile matches, I think Dustin is a better blood feud wrestler, more versatile, a better tag worker (one of the all time greats in that regard really), and more dynamic. I also think his WWF career is generally underrated as he had three separate runs that I would rate really highly (02ish, the WWECW run, and the last run).

[goodhelmet]

I picked Dustin because I think he may be one of the Top 5 tag workers of all time, but ringwise, I don't know if Austin hits Top 5 anything. His drawing power is undeniable but I am not going to make a GWE list based on drawing power or childhood memories.

[topropepodcast]

I'd rather watch peak Dustin, but I think his career had too many valleys to put him over Austin here.

[El-P]

Interesting indeed. I picked Dustin for reasons already talked about by Matt & Dylan, mostly.

[BillThompson]

Dustin is a top 10 guy for me, Austin isn't. I feel like Austin had a much shorter peak period, where even within that peak period the quality varied. Dustin was consistently among the best in the world from the moment he debuted, and I still had him on that level until the end of last year.

[goc]

Dustin was consistently among the best in the world from the moment he debuted, and I still had him on that level until the end of last year.

I voted Dustin but this is just demonstrably not true. He has long stretches of doing nothing or being actively not very good. I mean 98-2002 is like a completely dead period.

[Matt D]

I would like to see more Black Reign, actually. I know that sounds crazy but all i found online a few months ago were some garbage matches.

[goodhelmet]

 

Dustin was consistently among the best in the world from the moment he debuted, and I still had him on that level until the end of last year.

I voted Dustin but this is just demonstrably not true. He has long stretches of doing nothing or being actively not very good. I mean 98-2002 is like a completely dead period.

 

 

I thought Dustin had a shockingly good 1998 with the Val Venis feud that I love, love, love and the fun Vader match at Rumble. 2002 was the Goldust/Booker tag team and had some of the best tag segments in years entirely predicated on if they lost, they had to break up. Dustin milked every single nearfall and pin attempt as life or death. I can't think of anything relevant for 1999-2001. Hanging out with the Blue Meanie in 99. I don't know if he carried anyone in the dying days of WCW. Drawing a blank there.

[goc]

I may have gone too far out with 2002, I was thinking that Booker T/Goldust team was mostly in 2003. I don't really remember anything about the quality of the Venis/Goldust feud I pretty much just remember the whole "He's Coming Back" part.

[El-P]

I thought Dustin had a shockingly good 1998 with the Val Venis feud that I love, love, love (…) I don't know if he carried anyone in the dying days of WCW. Drawing a blank there.

 

The work during the Val Venis feu may have been good, but the feud itself was an abomination and the picture perfect illustration of everything wrong about Vince Russo (misogyny and fucked up heel/face dynamic)

 

Dustin had a good little bunkhouse brawl at Starrcade 99 with Jarrett (not a carry job), and again worked well with him during their tag match in March 2001 tagging with Dusty & Flair respectively (who both sucked by then). Dustin really didn't do shit in WCW, even his feud with Terry Funk stunk. And I love both guys.

[goodhelmet]

When we put together the 1998 yearbook, I pretty much insisted that we include the entirety of the feud because it may be the only great thing Vince Russo has ever been associated with.

[El-P]

When we put together the 1998 yearbook, I pretty much insisted that we include the entirety of the feud because it may be the only great thing Vince Russo has ever been associated with.

 

Seriously ? Babyface anouncer Ross screaming "she's a married woman for God's sake", ignoring the fact she had been dumped on live TV 8 months before and humiliated in the process, while the fans were actually cheering for Val Venis before turning on him because Goldust was a cool character, making the heel/face dynamic inexistant and Terri generally being portrayed like a slut (being dumped for being pregnant to the cheers of the crowd, then trying to get back into the favours of Goldust before admitting it was all a lie, after pretending a miscarriage). It was brutal.

[BillThompson]

 

Dustin was consistently among the best in the world from the moment he debuted, and I still had him on that level until the end of last year.

I voted Dustin but this is just demonstrably not true. He has long stretches of doing nothing or being actively not very good. I mean 98-2002 is like a completely dead period.

 

 

The feuds and angles he was involved ion from 1998-2002 weren't anything of note, but I still felt that Dustin was consistently giving performances in accordance with his previous work.

[Dylan Waco]

I'd rather watch peak Dustin, but I think his career had too many valleys to put him over Austin here.

 

Dustin had a much longer career than Austin. His valleys were in Attitude Era WWE, dying days WCW (where I didn't think he was terrible at all really, just nothing special much like everyone else) and TNA. Most of his other "down time" were just period in the 00's/10's where he wasn't with the WWE. In terms of number good years if you account for injury I think you really have to stretch to make a case for Austin over Dustin. His worst periods will hurt him some with me and keep him out of the absolute top tier, but there is only so much I can penalize someone for being bad in places where damn near everyone was bad.

[Matt D]

Except for when it comes to Sting's drawing, of course!

 

Have you seen much of the Dusty Rhodes, Jr. stuff Dylan? He worked Turnbuckle, right? How much of that is out there?

[C.S.]

 

Dustin was consistently among the best in the world from the moment he debuted, and I still had him on that level until the end of last year.

I voted Dustin but this is just demonstrably not true. He has long stretches of doing nothing or being actively not very good. I mean 98-2002 is like a completely dead period.

 

This is ultimately what swayed me to go with Austin.

 

Look, I love Dustin Rhodes - I even bought a massive compilation of his Dustin matches a few years ago, which I've never done with anyone else. I love Goldust. He magnificently reinvented himself and broke out of his father's shadow. I even love weird short-lived gimmicks like the American Nightmare. I love his versatility in general and his great work in the ring. But like goc correctly pointed out, Dustin's had several bad years. True, Austin's career was shorter, but he never had a bad year. Even his low point - The Ringmaster - lasted only a few months, and I'm willing to bet there were several decent matches in there too. When it comes to sheer consistency on a high level, very few can match Austin's career year by year. Plus, Austin made himself one of the biggest stars ever - nothing was handed to him. There are many cool Goldust moments, but none of them come close to the birth of Austin 3:16 at King of the Ring for its sheer magnitude and goosebump factor. Ditto for the amazing WM13 match with Bret. We're probably the biggest collection of Dustin marks online (I think that might be how I found this board), but I can't realistically not give this one to Austin.

[ohtani's jacket]

Dustin is a top 10 guy for me, Austin isn't. I feel like Austin had a much shorter peak period, where even within that peak period the quality varied. Dustin was consistently among the best in the world from the moment he debuted, and I still had him on that level until the end of last year.

 

Are you talking about his debut in WCW or his earlier Florida/Japan/WWF work?

[BillThompson]

 

Dustin is a top 10 guy for me, Austin isn't. I feel like Austin had a much shorter peak period, where even within that peak period the quality varied. Dustin was consistently among the best in the world from the moment he debuted, and I still had him on that level until the end of last year.

 

Are you talking about his debut in WCW or his earlier Florida/Japan/WWF work?

 

 

Meant his WCW debut.