Atlanta Region, Sixth Round: (1) Steve Austin vs. (6) Brock Lesnar

[klunderbunker]

The following contest is a sixth round match in the Wrestlezone Tournament.

This match takes place in the Georgia Dome in Atlanta, Georgia.

#1 Steve Austin

Vs.

#6 Brock Lesnar

This contest is one fall with a 60 minute time limit. The match will take place in a 16 x 16 ring with no ramp leading to it. Any traditional managers for either competitor will be allowed at ringside.

As for voting, vote for who you think would win this match based on the criteria you choose. Some suggestions would be (not limited to): in ring ability, overall skill, their level of influence at the highest point in their career, ability to connect with the crowd, experience in major matches or simply personal preference etc.

The most votes in the voting period wins and in the case of a tie, the most written votes wins. There is one written vote per user, meaning if a poster make ten posts saying Bret should win that will count as a single vote.

The final three rounds are a one night tournament. Any damage sustained in these matches carries over to the next round.

Voting will open in 72 hours and will be open for six days and all posts must be non-spam. You may use the 48 hours to present your cases as to why either competitor should/should not win.​

 

[PsychoBlack]

This is the end of the road for Lesnar. He had an excellent run in the tournament but he is no match for Stone Cold. This is the time where you can talk about Lesnar's short career hurting him. Austin dominated for around 10 years and was straight up bad ass. I feel that if Lesnar would have stayed on the track that he was on he could have been the undisputed GOAT, and in matches like this it's what he needs.

Stunner in 30

Vote Austin

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I'm going to make this somewhat even. Brock's short career may hurt him in some people's views but not with mine. I'm going to take PsychoBlack's statement that Austin dominated for 10 years and take some things out of it. Austin became a main eventer in 1998 and had to have surgery in late 1999 so that's about a year and a half. He came back in late 2000 and I would say he started dominating again for the duration of his title reign and heel turn so that's about eight months so really he dominated as a main eventer for a little over two years, about the same as Lesnar.

They both have faced some of the biggest names while they were in various stages of their careers. Would an Austin win over Rock in 1999 mean more than a Lesnar win over Rock in 2002? Would Angle making Austin tap in 2001 hurt more than Brock tapping to Angle in 2003? The same goes with Undertaker who I think was at his best after his return in 2004.

Austin refusing to job to Lesnar doesn't factor into my decision in any way because I can see arguments from both sides. Austin wasn't invincible and most of the opponents he faced usually got him the first time and Austin would come back and win in the rematch. I just believe this is one of those times and Lesnar will come out with the win.

 

[Coco]

Austin dominated for around 10 years

Really? Which around ten?

I've decided to judge each man by their first two years in the mainstream. No reason why. The mood simply struck me. Simply put, Lesnar ran through most men he faced in that time and that includes some major players. Austin? Not so much. His first couple years in the mainstream certainly weren't part of those ten dominant years you alluded to, I'll tell you that.

Lesnar in 30. Seconds, that is.

 

[BOSS Productions]

I'm pretty sure Austin's experience won't be a major factor over Lesnar , Lesnar was able to beat the likes of the well experienced , The Rock and Kurt Angle with ease so experience may give Austin a slight advantage but not enough to make him go over Lesnar here.

Also to bring in the political factor , Austin was suppose to put over Lesnar in 2002 in less then 30 seconds and even though Austin was well past his prime in 2002 , beating someone as a big as Austin in a mere 10 seconds is still very difficult to do. This is not a valid point to use against Austin though , since this never happened but I'm just putting this out there.

Lesnar is more then capable of beating Austin , Austin's knee has always been a major weak spot , which leads me to say that he is likely to pass out from the Brock Lock in a similar fashion to his loss against Bret Hart at WrestleMania 13.

Lesnar wins.

 

[Mac Attack]

Lesnar

Firstly because I don't want Stone Cold to win the entire thing again and secondly because Lesnar is actually better. Lesnar could destroy any opponent he faced, it was simple truth, he was a human Undertaker and I feel that he would be able to get the win in this type of scenario. I think Stamina does not matter because both guys are of relative heavyweight stature. I think mentally I would give this match to Lesnar. I think this would be a great match however just because Lesnar is slightly better I feel Lesnar deserves the win. However I feel this match will take a ton out of each other so I don't see the winner of this winning the next round so for that reason as well I must give it to Lesnar who I feel could beat either Rock or Sting.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Brock Lesnar is strongly getting my vote. I've had some time to consider the options, and my hatred of Steve Austin's overall career has won the 2-year Pro my vote.

Now, to not make this as personal, I'll give some simple logics to why Lesnar is about to kill Austin here.

Brock Lesnar only knew how to Main Event. He entered the wrestling scene in an April, and was headlining (and solidly destroying) against the likes of The Rock, The Undertaker, and Hulk Hogan, all by August. He was a 2-year pro, and in those 2 years he accomplished all of what Austin did in 10. The only thing Austin has on Lesnar is t-shirt sales. Congrats, the middle finger and f-bomb slogans on t-shirts win over the hearts of teens and males everywhere. Lesnar wins over inside the ring. [/End of argument]

I have more, but I'm going to eagerly await Austin marks to come out of the wood-work and try to dispel this argument. Well...

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

Everyone goes on about Lesnar only having had a short career in the WWE, and that IS true. However, Austin was only a main event player in the WWE from 1996 and spent a couple of years out of the company due to disagreements with Vince and a couple of severe injuries, before retiring in 2004. So, really Austin only had about 5 or 6 years where he was one of the top guys in WWE and was physically able to compete, and only won his first title in 1998.

However, looking at who they beat and the impact they had on the business, you have got to say Austin is the better man. Lesnar became the biggest star in the WWE at a time when business was on the decline, Austin is the man who led the WWE into its most profitable period in recent decades, and did more than anyone to make wrestling the "cool" thing, something that Lesnar failed to do.

The Austin character would never have backed down from anyone. He stood up against Mike Tyson, a man far more dangerous and deadly than Brock Lesnar and he beat The Rock at 2 successive Wrestlemania's. He won 6 World Titles, is the only man to win the Royal Rumble on 3 occasions, created the most memorable catchphrase in wrestling history and was the man who was tough enough to challenge the authority of Vince McMahon.

However, you would have to consider who was the better man in the ring, as selling t-shirts only gets you so far! Austin was not spectacular. He was good, he knew his limitations and his strengths and worked around them and he was an awesome brawler. However, Lesnar has the size, strength, power and amateur wrestling experience to run rings round Austin. I would also say Brock is faster, and combining all those skills together you have an unstoppable wrestling machine.

He accomplished more in his short WWE career than anyone else in history, he took out Hogan, he was basically never out of the main event scene and he would have gone on to be the most decorated wrestler in history, I have no doubts about that.

I have to give Brock Lesnar my vote here. He may not have had the same impact of the business as Stone Cold, but he is the better man and Austin has nothing that would stand up in the ring against Lesnar in his prime.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I'm going to make this somewhat even. Brock's short career may hurt him in some people's views but not with mine. I'm going to take PsychoBlack's statement that Austin dominated for 10 years and take some things out of it. Austin became a main eventer in 1998 and had to have surgery in late 1999 so that's about a year and a half. He came back in late 2000 and I would say he started dominating again for the duration of his title reign and heel turn so that's about eight months so really he dominated as a main eventer for a little over two years, about the same as Lesnar.

If anything, this point illustrates how much better Austin is as compared to Brock Lesnar. So they wrestled in the main event for roughly the same amount of time but yet Austin's achievements in terms of merchandise sales, TV ratings and PPV buys are much greater than those of Lesnar's.

They both have faced some of the biggest names while they were in various stages of their careers. Would an Austin win over Rock in 1999 mean more than a Lesnar win over Rock in 2002? Would Angle making Austin tap in 2001 hurt more than Brock tapping to Angle in 2003? The same goes with Undertaker who I think was at his best after his return in 2004.

Brock defeated a lot of big names at the *** end of their careers. He defeated Rock when he was about to go to Hollywood. He defeated Hogan when he was losing to almost everyone he was facing and winning generally tag matches or by interference. Angle and Undertaker were both pretty good in Lesnar's time but they were equally good in Austin's time as well.

So they are almost equal in this aspect but I believe that Austin's victory over Rock should count for more as he defeated Rock in his prime.

Austin refusing to job to Lesnar doesn't factor into my decision in any way because I can see arguments from both sides. Austin wasn't invincible and most of the opponents he faced usually got him the first time and Austin would come back and win in the rematch. I just believe this is one of those times and Lesnar will come out with the win.

There are quite a lot of people who do not agree with the bolded part of your statement. Rock, Mick Foley and Triple H all lost the very first time they faced Austin. Same with Chris Benoit and Rkishi though both guys are essentially midcarders. Undertaker lost his first match against Austin after Austin had hit his peak.

To sum up things, I would just like to say that there is no way in which any version of Brock Lesnar will ever be booked to go over an Austin in his prime. Austin defeated quite a lot of guys who were in the primes of their careers. Names of Rock, Mick Foley, Triple H and Kane spring to my mind. The only wrestler that Brock defeated who was in his prime at that time is Kurt Angle.

This is a video of Austin totally owning Brock in the ring after he had retired and at a time when Brock was still an active wrestler.

[YOUTUBE]sc3FNDIGai0[/YOUTUBE]


Vote for Austin!!!

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

You do make good points Rattlensnake and I could not complain if Austin won this match. The thing is though, I am looking at both men in their primes and not bothering with who sold more PPVs, who sold more t-shirts and who can talk better.

I am comparing both on their in-ring ability and who could come out on top over the other. Both accomplished an amazing amount in their short careers, Austin with more success but with a longer time at the top. If both men were at their best I think Lesnar is such an astonishing specimen that he would come out on top, although it would have been a great match.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

Tough, but I think I'll vote for Brock. Steve Austin was a great example of someone being a mega-star outside the ring as well as in. Austin is arguably the best known name outside of a wrestling ring. That's great, but that's not what this is about. This is about wrestling inside that ring. You can sell as many PPV's and t-shirts as you want, but it won't save you from facing a monster like Lesnar. Brock Lesnar is the man who defeated the Undertaker inside Hell in a Cell without help. Brock Lesnar is the man who ended the second coming of Hulkamania. Brock Lesnar simply put was a monster. Factor in the fact that Austin's prime saw him carry neck problem throughout and Lesnar's physical conditioning and the tournament element favours Brock more than Austin.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I know it wasn't directed at me, and LJL can hold his own, but I need to get in on this.

If anything, this point illustrates how much better Austin is as compared to Brock Lesnar. So they wrestled in the main event for roughly the same amount of time but yet Austin's achievements in terms of merchandise sales, TV ratings and PPV buys are much greater than those of Lesnar's.

So, based off everything here - you want to claim Steve Austin would win, because he sold more t-shirts? Not happening. Furthermore, Steve Austin did not dominate anyone in his prime or any other time in his career. He had a tough go against everyone he's ever faced, from Spike Dudley (yeah), to The Rock, and The Undertaker.

Brock Lesnar, on the other hand, has all but firmly been in control of most of his matches. You'll find the random tough matches against guys like Edge (British ppv), and Angle (any of their match-ups), but against guys like the Undertaker - Lesnar seemingly handled him a lot easier than Austin ever did. Same with the Rock, at Summerslam.

Brock defeated a lot of big names at the *** end of their careers. He defeated Rock when he was about to go to Hollywood. He defeated Hogan when he was losing to almost everyone he was facing and winning generally tag matches or by interference. Angle and Undertaker were both pretty good in Lesnar's time but they were equally good in Austin's time as well.

Uhm, wrong. Hulk Hogan was destroyed by Lesnar, yes, and I'll even agree that out of everyone - Hogan was at the end of his in-ring career (to a degree), but he was still the "Immortal" guy who hulked up and did all that jazz. Lesnar just refused to fall for it, and squashed the bug.

The Rock wasn't at "the end of his prime", he was merely not a full-time wrestler. Yet he'd also just defeated the likes of The Undertaker and Kurt Angle in a return to the ring, to win the Undisputed Heavyweight title. So I'd hardly say he'd lost a step. And all the same, Lesnar didn't even look sluggish against him at Summerslam. Once again, Lesnar dominated the contest.

The Undertaker was the exact opposite of "beyond his prime". And as far as "equally as good in Austin's time", no, he really wasn't. Taker, in 2002-2003 was IN his prime. He had arguably the best time of his career in the early stages of the 2000's. Simply because he wasn't "The Dead Man", means nothing.

Finally, as far as Kurt Angle goes.. he was Lesnar's toughest challenge because both men were paired up equally with the exception of Lesnar had the power advantage. Now, on that note - it seems to me that Austin had a tougher time against Angle without the power being a factor. Once you add that in, it turns even worse for him.

So they are almost equal in this aspect but I believe that Austin's victory over Rock should count for more as he defeated Rock in his prime.

Pssh. The first Wrestlemania the two met (XV), the Rock had only been a "main eventer" for roughly 4 months. I'd hardly say that's the Rock being at the top of his game. As for Mania X-7, I seem to recall a ton of chair shots and McMahon being in Austin's pocket for him to win there. Neither strike me as being worthy of counting for more.

There are quite a lot of people who do not agree with the bolded part of your statement. Rock, Mick Foley and Triple H all lost the very first time they faced Austin. Same with Chris Benoit and Rkishi though both guys are essentially midcarders. Undertaker lost his first match against Austin after Austin had hit his peak.

Steve Austin was "at his peak", in 1997. The Undertaker defeated Steve Austin at "In Your House: Cold Day in Hell"; which was their first official meeting after Austin was "at his peak". (which was following/during the end of the Bret Hart feud)

Brock Lesnar seems to have defeated all of the same guys, minus Foley, and with more ease. Lesnar's never lost to the likes of Rikishi, Benoit, Undertaker or Rock. Can Austin say the same? No. Infact, in his entire career I truly only recall Lesnar losing to five people..

1.) Rob Van Dam - Vengeance 2002 - DQ.
2.) Big Show - Survivor Series - 2002 - because of Paul Heyman turning.
3.) Kurt Angle - various times - most fairly.
4.) Eddie Guerrero - No Way Out - 2003 - because of Goldberg helping.
5.) Goldberg - Wrestlemania - 2003 - leaving the company, otherwise fair.

Steve Austin has lost to countless more, sometimes even multiple times in the same week. The overall point? Lesnar doesn't lose often, and when he does - normally it isn't fair.

To sum up things, I would just like to say that there is no way in which any version of Brock Lesnar will ever be booked to go over an Austin in his prime.

Except for the version of Lesnar in May-June of 2002 that was booked to go over Steve Austin, and it forced Austin to bitch and moan then leave the Company for the next year. But, yeah, other than the actual reality of that legit happening - I suppose we could all just assume and believe it'd never happen, in our own minds.

This is a video of Austin totally owning Brock in the ring after he had retired and at a time when Brock was still an active wrestler.

[YOUTUBE]sc3FNDIGai0[/YOUTUBE]

Wait, wait, so in an earlier part of your post you want to claim Lesnar shouldn't be given full credit for his wins over the likes of Hogan or Rock, because they were on their way out.. even though both were fully able to wrestle just as good during those times. Now you want to give Austin full credit over owning Brock Lesnar, during a time in which Lesnar and the Company were at each other's throats because he was leaving the Company to go (fail) with the Vikings, and Austin had just made up with the Company after walking out because he refused to (legit) "job" to Lesnar a year earlier??? The hell?!

 

[Long Island Iced D]

I give it to austin although I had a tough time doing so. I think just because the damage sustained from the previous round would catch up with lesnar. Austin would have an easy time beating edge while lesnar I think would take more damage from michaels. I never usually factor in previous rounds but I thought both these guys were pretty even and carried the WWE during their runs.
VOTE AUSTIN

 

[Ace Sleeper]

Well it looks like Brock's gonna win this whole thing if he wins this round. If he's getting past Austin this easy, he should destroy Sting or The Rock.

Anyway, my vote goes to Lesnar. He's a powerhouse. That's all there is to it. Fast, strong, technical, can brawl, agile. Austin throws a good punch and packs some power into that stunner, but I can't see him winning this.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I give it to austin although I had a tough time doing so.

Sporting an Austin avatar and signature, I'm sure you had a long hard second's worth of a thought on voting for Austin.

I think just because the damage sustained from the previous round would catch up with lesnar. Austin would have an easy time beating edge while lesnar I think would take more damage from michaels. I never usually factor in previous rounds but I thought both these guys were pretty even and carried the WWE during their runs.
VOTE AUSTIN

No, just no. Why? because I bring up the King of the Ring tournament's both individuals were in.

While Brock Lesnar went through the likes of Test, then Rob Van Dam without much trouble - and Shawn Michaels is obviously tougher than both of those combined, I'm looking more at why Austin is already spent after his match with Edge. (who you're barely giving any credit to, which is complete BS)

In 1996, Steve Austin defeated Marc Mero and in the process took on a busted lip and some stitches. Then, in the Finals, he went up against an over-the-hill, 41 yr old, Jake Roberts who was destroyed earlier in the night by a pissed off Vader.. and Austin struggled throughout that Finals match to put Jake away, including Roberts almost connecting with his finisher and possibly winning himself.

Now, yes, Austin won and went on to give birth to Austin 3:16. And I'm sure anyone can claim "that was before Austin's prime", but lets face it, Austin was a ring vet and "prime" or not, he was taken to school, and given a run, by an out of shape senior citizen (by wrestling terms). Brock Lesnar is NOT out of shape, nor is he entering this match as an injured old man.

Lesnar may have had a tougher match than Austin, even though I doubt Austin had a cake walk considering Edge would've tried using dirty tactics to win, and obviously failed. The point is though, Austin has shown that he struggles in competing more than once in a single night. Lesnar doesn't. Lesnar is taking this one.

 

[ThUnDeRpHoEnIx]

I voted for Lesnar.

I know Lesnars gonna progress anway but I reckon Shawn Michaels would've done enough damage to Lesnar that would've been more then what Edge did to Austin.But as the person above me said Austin has trouble taking on more then one person in one night.So Lesnar would win but wont win whoever wins the Rock/Sting match.

 

[tarp]

Keep the arguments up. I personally like Stone Cold more as a performer, but as far as a wrestling match Lesnar has had more classics in a much shorter career. Just his matches with Angle almost out do Austin. Austin matches were much shorter. He had some good matches with Rock and the classic with Bret Hart however I am leaning towards Lesnar, but Stone Cold could still get my vote, after all he is my 5th favorite wrestler. Convince me posters.

 

[justinsayne]

Stone Cold left the WWE for the better part of a year, just to avoid facing Brock, and losing to Brock, that right there should tell you how little faith that even Stone Cold has in himself when he's see's he has to face Lesnar, my guess Stone Cold see's the brackets realizes he's facing Brock, and decides to take his ball and go home once again, giving Brock the win

 

[Lion's Sacrifice]

I don't see Austin winning this one. Plan and simple. Austin is simply outclassed when it comes to the ring. While yes, Austin can out drink anyone, but this isn't a drinking a contest. This shouldn't even be close. Austin as great as he is, isn't going to be able handle Lesnar in a match. With all who's left, I don't know if anyone who can beat Lesnar.

Vote Lesnar.

 

[Pole Smoker]

I voted for Brock because he dominated everyone. He beat Rock, Hogan, Taker all in his first year and Austin would be no different.

 

[Smartie]

I could o on and do a long annoying rant on why I think everyone should vote Austin, but what I see that people are able to use any criteria so I kinda shut up.

We all know that Austin is the better one, but we all know that when Brock showed up, he dominated every one so he could beat Austin and that's enough.

I'll vote Austin but I think there isn't anyone better than Brock to eliminate Austin, so I won't be sad.

 

[mrbrownstone]

Are you kidding me? How is Lesnar winning this? We are talking about arguably the biggest draw in wrestling history and at the very worst the second biggest draw. The guy who won a record three Royal Rumble matches. A guy who went on last three times at Wrestlemania's and didn't loose once.

During Austin's time on the top to his 1999 injury (Rumble 1998-Summerslam 1999) Austin was in 17 main event matches and lost only 6 times, once by DQ, once in a Rumble match, once in a triple threat where he was pinned by Taker and Kane and once in a handicap match. So, during that time he only lost cleanly twice and one of those was a triple threat. During that time on top there was only one time he didn't main event and even then he was a guest ref. Simply put in his time one top, Austin didn't loose.

Compare that to Lesnar's record from his time on top (KOTR 2002-WMXX) he had 21 PPV's he was eligible to appear at, he wasn't even on the card three times, he lost 7 times and he went on last only 10 times.

So during Austin's run on top he was always featured on the card in some capacity, he was always in the main event and he lost cleanly only twice. During Lesnar's time he wasn't even featured three times, he lost nearly half of the time and he didn't Main Event half the time.

Evidence shows that Austin was the bigger star and in big matches like this he rarely lost. Lesnar lost nearly half of the time. This one is simple, it ends with Lesnar laying in the middle of the ring after a stunner, just like WM 20.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Okay, I'll play.

Are you kidding me? How is Lesnar winning this?

Apparently people aren't completely naive and have been doing the right thing. That being, voting for the guy who has already been proven to get picked to go over in actual history. Lesnar.

We are talking about arguably the biggest draw in wrestling history and at the very worst the second biggest draw.

I completely agree that Steve Austin was one of the top draws in the Wrestling industry, that does not in any way mean he is untouchable, or unbeatable. Infact, the guy has lost to several individuals who aren't even remembered. Point is, being the biggest draw in the industry does not give you an instant pass.

The guy who won a record three Royal Rumble matches.

First off, this isn't a Royal Rumble - so regardless of how many he's been in, or won, I doubt it matters. Secondly, for those who think it does matter, Brock Lesnar won the ONLY Royal Rumble he was ever apart of. Austin's lost some he was involved in, including to Mr. McMahon. Ouch.

A guy who went on last three times at Wrestlemania's and didn't loose once.

The only Mania that Lesnar and Austin were ever apart of in which both were profiled, Brock Lesnar WAS the Main Event, winning the Heavyweight Championship. Steve Austin was losing to the Rock on the mid-card.

During Austin's time on the top to his 1999 injury (Rumble 1998-Summerslam 1999) Austin was in 17 main event matches and lost only 6 times, once by DQ, once in a Rumble match, once in a triple threat where he was pinned by Taker and Kane and once in a handicap match. So, during that time he only lost cleanly twice and one of those was a triple threat. During that time on top there was only one time he didn't main event and even then he was a guest ref. Simply put in his time one top, Austin didn't loose.

Actually, you just said he lost 6 times. Soo, I'd say he still lost while being on top. Considering he could lose this match via countout, DQ, submission or pinfall - that's four chances for him to lose.

Compare that to Lesnar's record from his time on top (KOTR 2002-WMXX) he had 21 PPV's he was eligible to appear at, he wasn't even on the card three times, he lost 7 times and he went on last only 10 times.

Alright, so from the time Lesnar was being pushed (aka; his entire career) the following is his ppv history.

Backlash; d. Jeff Hardy
Judgment Day; w/ Paul Heyman d. the Hardy Boyz
King of the Ring; d. Test & RVD to become the KotR winner.
Vengeance; lost via DQ to RVD
Summerslam; d. the Rock to become Heavyweight Champion
Unforgiven; draw against the Undertaker
No Mercy; d. the Undertaker (Hell in a Cell)
Survivor Series; lost to the Big Show (via a screwjob)
Armageddon; not on card - involved in Heavyweight title match.

Royal Rumble; d. Big Show, then won the Royal Rumble.
No Way Out; w/ Chris Benoit d. Kurt Angle and WGTT
Wrestlemania XIX; d. Kurt Angle to win Heavyweight Championship
Backlash; d. John Cena
Judgment Day; d. Big Show (Stretcher Match)
Badd Blood; (Raw ONLY ppv)
Vengeance; lost to Kurt Angle & the Big Show
Summerslam; lost to Kurt Angle
Unforgiven; (Raw ONLY ppv)
No Mercy; d. the Undertaker (Biker Chain match)
Survivor Series; lost to Kurt Angle, John Cena, Chris Benoit, Bradshaw & Bob Holly
Armageddon; (Raw ONLY ppv)

Royal Rumble; d. Bob Holly
No Way Out; lost to Eddie Guerrero (via Goldberg interference)
Wrestlemania XX; lost to Goldberg (last match with Company)

Now, during the time you claim he "wasn't on the card" - was this during the RAW ONLY ppv's?! Perhaps you wanna toss in how Austin was in WCW, and Lesnar didn't even get a chance to compete there, eh?

Brock Lesnar missed ONE ppv he was actually eligible for - Armageddon, 2003, even though he was still apart of the show.

Lesnar's ppv record was 12-7-1.

During those losses, twice he was screwed, once was by DQ, one was a Survivor Series match, one was a Triple Threat (via Angle), and the final two were legit to Kurt Angle and Goldberg. (not exactly easy opponents)

So during Austin's run on top he was always featured on the card in some capacity, he was always in the main event and he lost cleanly only twice. During Lesnar's time he wasn't even featured three times, he lost nearly half of the time and he didn't Main Event half the time.

You were quoted earlier at saying Austin's "time on top" was for a whole 14 months. (Jan. 98-Aug. 99) Now, I'll throw in the extra 3 months (Aug.-Nov.) making it 17, and it still isn't as many as Lesnar had "on top". (21 months)

Now then, during the Jan. 98-Nov. 99 time period, Steve Austin went 11-9. Here is his line-up.

Royal Rumble; won Royal Rumble
No Way out; d. Triple H, Billy Gunn, Roaddogg, Savio Vega
Wrestlemania; d. the Rock
Unforgiven; lost via DQ to Dude Love
Over the Edge; d. Dude Love
King of the Ring; lost to Kane
Fully Loaded; w/ the Undertaker d. Kane & Mankind
Summerslam; d. the Undertaker
Breakdown; lost to the Undertaker & Kane - Triple Threat match.
Judgment Day; not in a match - special ref. in Championship match.
Survivor Series; lost to Mankind in Championship tournament.
Rock Bottom; d. the Undertaker (Buried Alive match)

Royal Rumble; lost to Mr. McMahon in the Royal Rumble match.
St. Valentine's Day Massacre; d. Mr. McMahon (Steel Cage)
Wrestlemania; d. the Rock
Backlash; d. the Rock
Over the Edge; lost to the Undertaker
King of the Ring; lost to Mr. McMahon & Shane McMahon (ladder match)
Fully Loaded; d. the Undertaker
Summerslam; lost to Mankind & Triple H. (Triple Threat match)
Unforgiven; not in a match - special ref. in Championship match.
No Mercy; lost to Triple H.

Now then - in comparing the two's "on top ppv record", not only has Brock Lesnar WON more - he's LOST LESS.

Evidence shows that Austin was the bigger star and in big matches like this he rarely lost. Lesnar lost nearly half of the time. This one is simple, it ends with Lesnar laying in the middle of the ring after a stunner, just like WM 20.

I just provided you with actual proof that Austin lost more than Lesnar in ppv matches during their "on top" time period that you, yourself, set.

As for anything else - Steve Austin ran away from the Company because he knew he'd lose to Brock Lesnar, (shit, he was actually SUPPOSE TO) and did not return until after Lesnar was already filing paperwork and beginning gaining hatred from McMahon for leaving. Austin fears Lesnar like fat people fear sugar-free foods.

This one ends with Lesnar retiring Austin, by breaking his neck - again.

 

[mrbrownstone]

I completely agree that Steve Austin was one of the top draws in the Wrestling industry, that does not in any way mean he is untouchable, or unbeatable. Infact, the guy has lost to several individuals who aren't even remembered. Point is, being the biggest draw in the industry does not give you an instant pass.

Well, it kind of does for the most part. The fact that Austin is (by far) the bigger star of the two means that in all likelihood he would be booked to win.

First off, this isn't a Royal Rumble - so regardless of how many he's been in, or won, I doubt it matters. Secondly, for those who think it does matter, Brock Lesnar won the ONLY Royal Rumble he was ever apart of. Austin's lost some he was involved in, including to Mr. McMahon. Ouch.

It may not matter in this match particularly but it shows that he wins in big match environments. Also come on, you think that if Brock had actually stuck around he wouldn't have eventually lost one?

The only Mania that Lesnar and Austin were ever apart of in which both were profiled, Brock Lesnar WAS the Main Event, winning the Heavyweight Championship. Steve Austin was losing to the Rock on the mid-card.

Since when is going on 2nd last "mid-card?", does that make HHH-Taker from this years Mania a mid card match? And maybe that fact that both Rock and Austin were past their prime in 2003 has something to do with it. It is hardly fair to compare.

Actually, you just said he lost 6 times. Soo, I'd say he still lost while being on top. Considering he could lose this match via countout, DQ, submission or pinfall - that's four chances for him to lose.

Fair enough, so your argument is that Brock will beat Steve by DQ or countout. I suppose I could actually believe you if you said that because that is about the only way he would win, as I am about to show you Austin only lost clean under extreme circumstances.

Alright, so from the time Lesnar was being pushed (aka; his entire career) the following is his ppv history.

Backlash; d. Jeff Hardy
Judgment Day; w/ Paul Heyman d. the Hardy Boyz
King of the Ring; d. Test & RVD to become the KotR winner.
Vengeance; lost via DQ to RVD
Summerslam; d. the Rock to become Heavyweight Champion
Unforgiven; draw against the Undertaker
No Mercy; d. the Undertaker (Hell in a Cell)
Survivor Series; lost to the Big Show (via a screwjob)
Armageddon; not on card - involved in Heavyweight title match.

Royal Rumble; d. Big Show, then won the Royal Rumble.
No Way Out; w/ Chris Benoit d. Kurt Angle and WGTT
Wrestlemania XIX; d. Kurt Angle to win Heavyweight Championship
Backlash; d. John Cena
Judgment Day; d. Big Show (Stretcher Match)
Badd Blood; (Raw ONLY ppv)
Vengeance; lost to Kurt Angle & the Big Show
Summerslam; lost to Kurt Angle
Unforgiven; (Raw ONLY ppv)
No Mercy; d. the Undertaker (Biker Chain match)
Survivor Series; lost to Kurt Angle, John Cena, Chris Benoit, Bradshaw & Bob Holly
Armageddon; (Raw ONLY ppv)

Royal Rumble; d. Bob Holly
No Way Out; lost to Eddie Guerrero (via Goldberg interference)
Wrestlemania XX; lost to Goldberg (last match with Company)

Now, during the time you claim he "wasn't on the card" - was this during the RAW ONLY ppv's?! Perhaps you wanna toss in how Austin was in WCW, and Lesnar didn't even get a chance to compete there, eh?

Brock Lesnar missed ONE ppv he was actually eligible for - Armageddon, 2003, even though he was still apart of the show.

Lesnar's ppv record was 12-7-1.

During those losses, twice he was screwed, once was by DQ, one was a Survivor Series match, one was a Triple Threat (via Angle), and the final two were legit to Kurt Angle and Goldberg. (not exactly easy opponents)

Alright yeah I was counting the Raw PPVs, I was thinking that they didn't start until 2004 when I was doing this. I can't believe they were around that early, but that is for another discussion.

Lets analyse that record properly, shall we.

Backlash; d. Jeff Hardy - Squash match, on in the middle of the card.
Judgment Day; w/ Paul Heyman d. the Hardy Boyz - Another squash, middle of the card.
King of the Ring; d. Test & RVD to become the KotR winner - Impressive stuff.
Vengeance; lost via DQ to RVD - Middle of the card.
Summerslam; d. the Rock to become Heavyweight Champion - Great stuff, only thing is Austin beat this guy in his prime on the biggest stage, twice.
Unforgiven; draw against the Undertaker - See above, Austin beat Taker multiple times.
No Mercy; d. the Undertaker (Hell in a Cell) - Impressive stuff beating Taker in his own match.
Survivor Series; lost to the Big Show (via a screwjob) - 5 minute title match, middle of the card.
Armageddon; not on card - involved in Heavyweight title match.

Royal Rumble; d. Big Show, then won the Royal Rumble.- Austin did this 3 times
No Way Out; w/ Chris Benoit d. Kurt Angle and WGTT
Wrestlemania XIX; d. Kurt Angle to win Heavyweight Championship
Backlash; d. John Cena - Cena, who at the time was still fresh on the scene and only a mid card talent.
Judgment Day; d. Big Show (Stretcher Match)
Badd Blood; (Raw ONLY ppv) - Already addressed this.
Vengeance; lost to Kurt Angle & the Big Show
Summerslam; lost to Kurt Angle -
Unforgiven; (Raw ONLY ppv)
No Mercy; d. the Undertaker (Biker Chain match)
Survivor Series; lost to Kurt Angle, John Cena, Chris Benoit, Bradshaw & Bob Holly - Went on first
Armageddon; (Raw ONLY ppv)

Royal Rumble; d. Bob Holly - Another 6 minute squash of a lower card talent.
No Way Out; lost to Eddie Guerrero (via Goldberg interference)
Wrestlemania XX; lost to Goldberg (last match with Company)

So, he loses in FIVE MINUTES in a title match on one of the biggest shows of the year, beats jobbers, faces mid card talent (Cena, Holly) in title matches and goes on first (something Austin never did on PPV).

You were quoted earlier at saying Austin's "time on top" was for a whole 14 months. (Jan. 98-Aug. 99) Now, I'll throw in the extra 3 months (Aug.-Nov.) making it 17, and it still isn't as many as Lesnar had "on top". (21 months)

I was saying Austin's consecutive time on top, sorry I should have specified that. Austin was also on top for the latter part of 2000 and most of 2001.

Now then, during the Jan. 98-Nov. 99 time period, Steve Austin went 11-9. Here is his line-up.

Royal Rumble; won Royal Rumble
No Way out; d. Triple H, Billy Gunn, Roaddogg, Savio Vega
Wrestlemania; d. the Rock
Unforgiven; lost via DQ to Dude Love
Over the Edge; d. Dude Love
King of the Ring; lost to Kane
Fully Loaded; w/ the Undertaker d. Kane & Mankind
Summerslam; d. the Undertaker
Breakdown; lost to the Undertaker & Kane - Triple Threat match.
Judgment Day; not in a match - special ref. in Championship match.
Survivor Series; lost to Mankind in Championship tournament.
Rock Bottom; d. the Undertaker (Buried Alive match)

Royal Rumble; lost to Mr. McMahon in the Royal Rumble match.
St. Valentine's Day Massacre; d. Mr. McMahon (Steel Cage)
Wrestlemania; d. the Rock
Backlash; d. the Rock
Over the Edge; lost to the Undertaker
King of the Ring; lost to Mr. McMahon & Shane McMahon (ladder match)
Fully Loaded; d. the Undertaker
Summerslam; lost to Mankind & Triple H. (Triple Threat match)
Unforgiven; not in a match - special ref. in Championship match.
No Mercy; lost to Triple H.

Same deal, lets really analyse this.

Royal Rumble; won Royal Rumble
No Way out; d. Triple H, Billy Gunn, Roaddogg, Savio Vega
Wrestlemania; d. the Rock
Unforgiven; lost via DQ to Dude Love - DQ loss
Over the Edge; d. Dude Love
King of the Ring; lost to Kane - Regained that title the very next night.
Fully Loaded; w/ the Undertaker d. Kane & Mankind
Summerslam; d. the Undertaker
Breakdown; lost to the Undertaker & Kane - Triple Threat match.
Judgment Day; not in a match - special ref. in Championship match.
Survivor Series; lost to Mankind in Championship tournament. - Screwed by the corporation.
Rock Bottom; d. the Undertaker (Buried Alive match)

Royal Rumble; lost to Mr. McMahon in the Royal Rumble match.
St. Valentine's Day Massacre; d. Mr. McMahon (Steel Cage)
Wrestlemania; d. the Rock
Backlash; d. the Rock
Over the Edge; lost to the Undertaker
King of the Ring; lost to Mr. McMahon & Shane McMahon (ladder match) - Handicap match.
Fully Loaded; d. the Undertaker
Summerslam; lost to Mankind & Triple H. (Triple Threat match)
Unforgiven; not in a match - special ref. in Championship match.
No Mercy; lost to Triple H - Austin was injured at the time, he would take nearly a years leave soon after.

Now then - in comparing the two's "on top ppv record", not only has Brock Lesnar WON more - he's LOST LESS.

Well if you include beating the Hardyz, (2003) Cena, RVD, Holly and Show on the same level as beating Dude Love, Taker, Rock etc then yeah he won more but the quality of opponents is hardly comparable. Also when Steve did lose, he predominantly lost either to screwjob finish or DQ, very rarely was it completely clean.

Also just look at the names he lost to, is losing to the likes of Taker or Mankind comparable to losing to Big Show or Eddie Guerrero? I don't think so.

I just provided you with actual proof that Austin lost more than Lesnar in ppv matches during their "on top" time period that you, yourself, set.

Like I said if winning against Holly and The Hardyz and losing to Show and Angle is comparable to losing to Taker and HHH then thats great but you have to take the quality of opponents into consideration.

Basically from what I have seen here everything Brock has done Austin did better, beat Rock? Yep, twice at Wrestlemania. Main Event WM? Yup, three times and he never lost. Beat Taker? Multiple times. Win the Rumble? Yup, an unprecedented three times. Main Event PPV's? Yup every PPV match Stone Cold was in was a main event, half of Brock's were in the middle of the card. Stone Cold is the bigger star, more over star and in most cases the person who can claim that often wins.

So really with all this, the only way I could see Steve losing is with some miracle DQ or screw job finish, so if you want to argue your case for that then be my guest but otherwise, Steve wins with a Stunner in the middle of the ring.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

This is actually a feud they could pull off if both men made it back to the WWE on a semi-permanent basis. I'm not saying it ever WILL happen, but it's still a possibility. Lesnar could get back at Austin for that stunner he took at WrestleMania 20 and set something up. I don't know.... I'm just saying it could happen.

As for the match itself... I'm going to change my tune thus far and go with Brock Lesnar. The two of these men could put on the most brutal match the WWE has ever seen. Neither of them are strangers to blood and violence. Collide Austin's classic match with Bret Hart and the Lesnar/Taker Hell in a Cell match if you're not sure... In the end I think Austin would hit Lesnar with everything he has and more. He would stun him 2 or 3 times, stun Paul Heyman for good measure, and go through a Home Depot's worth of hardware trying to defeat the monster. But when all is said and done, just like when Lesnar somehow managed to kick out of everything the Undertaker threw at him, Brock will defeat Steve Austin. One final F5 is all it would take to pull the switch. It would actually be one hell of a retirement match for the Rattlesnake at WrestleMania.