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

Discussion in 'Atlanta Region' started by klunderbunker, Apr 6, 2011.

?

Who Wins This Match

  1. Steve Austin

  2. Brock Lesnar

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Little Jerry Lawler

    Little Jerry Lawler Sigmund Freud On Ritalin And Roids

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,712
    Likes Received:
    938
    So Brock being part of a match that went on first at Survivor Series counts against him? Survivor Series rarely ends with a 5-on-5 match. The only recent years I can think of this occuring was in 2001 and 2005. It's not like Austin lost titles in PPV matches either.

    You seem to forget that most of the PPV's that Brock was in the middle of the card were dual-branded. Usually, the main event was HHH's crusade against the WCW stars.




    So Austin vs. Hall at WM 18 was a main event match, right? I can't forget that epic Austin vs. Flair and Big Show at Judgment Day. Riveting stuff between Austin and Bischoff at No Way Out 2003.
     
    #26
  2. Tastycles

    Tastycles Turn Bayley heel

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    2,907
    Likes Received:
    1,515
    Steve Austin has better matches, is a bigger draw, is better on the mic, more important to the history of wrestling and all round better than Brock Lesnar. You can try and analyse the power game, or the submission work, or anything else Lesnar did to get him the win, but the fact will remain that he's nowhere near as good a professional wrestler as Steve Austin.
     
    #27
    shattered dreams likes this.
  3. FitFinlay4Life

    FitFinlay4Life What's the craic?

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,908
    Likes Received:
    708
    Couple reasons why I voted for Austin:

    Personal preference: Austin left wrestling a physical wreck (neck and knees) and actually had his prime after sustaining said injuries. Brock left wrestling on a bloody whim! I've seen it referred to a couple of times about the time a basically retired Austin refused to be squashed by the next big thing on free tv. This was only a small part of a period in which Stone Cold felt the company was popcorning storylines taking away from his legacy for short term gain. Politicking is not one of my favoured traits in a character but I'd rather have a guy standing up for himself with a reason than one who would spit in his bosses face by walking out after being pushed to the extent, in his two years, that SEVEN YEARS later guys are arguing that he'd roll over legends and HoFers with multi decade careers.

    Storyline: Brock Lesnar was a monster with a manager but he was exactly what the Texas Rattlesnake made his name defeating, just replace Heyman with the more powerful McMahon and Lesnar with any number of top names who SC always ultimately overcame. Given the prestige of this tournament, I'll have to have Steve win their first meeting - Brock can win the 2nd for the WWF/e Title before Austin ultimately comes out on top with the 'rubber' victory.
     
    #28
  4. Long Island Iced D

    Long Island Iced D Dedicated Zack Ryder Nut-hugger

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    23
    I really dont see why somebody would vote for a current UFC fighter and a man who only spent a few years in the business to win. My vote goes to Austin to tie it up 43 votes to 43 votes 50/50
     
    #29
  5. Big Nick Dudley

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    I voted for Steve Austin out of personal preference. Oh, and he's better, at everything.

    Much, much better talker, more entertaining, awesome character, bigger draw (not counting UFC, of course), and much more important to the history of professional wrestling.

    That being said, I don't care if he loses this match. He has won this tournament before, and rightfully so. Austin and Brock aren't in the same stratosphere, with Stone Cold being the second biggest superstar in the history of the business.

    No matter the outcome here, Austin is definitely the better wrestler.
     
    #30
  6. 48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    559
  7. Hulkamaniac

    Hulkamaniac Vote Hogan, Savage, Rocky and Thesz

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    99
    Vote Lesnar because Steve Austin ran away from the company rather than get his ass kicked. Austin knew what awaited him.
     
    #32
  8. Mac Attack

    Mac Attack I'm neat.

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    917
    Likes Received:
    681
    Lesnar

    First how did Stone Cold come back?

    Anyways, Lesnar decimated every opponet he came across in his short tenure in the WWE. Austin ran away from it, who is the winner? You tell me.
     
    #33
  9. FitFinlay4Life

    FitFinlay4Life What's the craic?

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,908
    Likes Received:
    708
    And what do you call what Lesnar done? If your playing the real life card, Austin not wanting to be squashed by a rookie on free tv is a misdemeanour compared to walking out on the business (when your getting pushed to the moon) to take up a sport that you don't even play.
     
    #34
  10. Hulkamaniac

    Hulkamaniac Vote Hogan, Savage, Rocky and Thesz

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    99
    Lesnar didn't run away from anyone. He left because he was done with the business. Austin left because he didn't want to lose to Lesnar. Big difference.
     
    #35
  11. FitFinlay4Life

    FitFinlay4Life What's the craic?

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,908
    Likes Received:
    708
    Austin didn't run away from Lesnar, he walked away from a storyline (part of a run of storylines that he wasn't happy with at the time) that wasn't run so kayfabe never happened. Do you really blame a guy who figureheaded the WWF to running WCW out of business not wanting to tarnish his reputation by losing to a guy with less WEEKS on the main roster than he had YEARS in a squash on nonPPV?

    Lesnar was done with the business? After two years? AND he returned to said business when his little experiment failed.

    I've stated my reasons for supporting Stone Cold - he was the biggest name in wrestling and, as such, he could and would defeat everyone. In his short career, so did Lesnar. Kayfabe, either guy could win in their primes. I prefer to vote for Austin because he gave his life and health to the sport this forum is derived from, Lesnar didn't give it a college career!
     
    #36
    shattered dreams likes this.
  12. shattered dreams

    shattered dreams Hexagonal Hedonist

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    975
    Who cares if you want to twist it so that Austin left to "avoid" Lesnar? Bottom line is that Lesnar quickly proved Austin was right. Austin didn't leave so that he would not have to be defeated by Lesnar. He left because Lesnar was being handed everything without the proper commitment and respect for what he was getting. Lesnar did not deserve to be booked over Austin. Austin's legend afforded him the opportunity to say this is wrong. Lesnar does not have such a legend in prowrestling. A few years after Lesnar disrespected everything that had been given to him he was jobbing out to Kurt Angle in Japan.
     
    #37
  13. TheOneBigWill

    TheOneBigWill [This Space for Rent]

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    7,618
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Sorry for the delay, I was actually trying to decide if I should waste the time in replying when it seems even though Austin is currently (now) in the lead, as far as actual posts - Lesnar should be dominating everything.

    Which tells me that people aren't reading arguments, nor are they caring; they're just voting out of stupidity for Austin because of who his character was (attitude filled, authority fighting, redneck swearing, beer drinker) which probably fits the majority of those who voted him.

    Yes, it's a stereo-type, and yes, one I'll completely stand beside in believing is the only reason why he has 60 some votes and not even 10 actual worthy posts in his favor. Now then, let's continue, shall we?

    However every bit of this was proven wrong with actual fact in 2002, when Steve Austin ultimately left the Company out of refusal of selective storyline situations - including losing, cleanly, to Brock Lesnar as a pure rookie.

    So, Steve Austin - who in 2002 was at the top of his level and had achieved everything he would ever go on to achieve, minus a Hall of Fame induction - and he was picked to lose cleanly to a rookie Brock Lesnar.

    That tells me that regardless of star-status, Austin was not above being selected to lose to up-and-coming future big things. He was merely, in his own mind, above feeling like he had to lose to them, so he quit instead.

    I'm sure if Lesnar had continued to compete instead of leaving and trying out for the NFL, that Lesnar would've went on to continue having a very dominate career. This of course falls into the "What if's" catagory. Along with the assumption that I believe Lesnar would've defeated Goldberg instead of lost to him, because Lesnar and Goldberg were both leaving the Company and it was widely believed (and said) that Goldberg only got the nod because the Company hated Lesnar for leaving after all they'd done for him and given him.

    Now, if you're going to use that against him here - then I have every right to use Austin's personal abuse toward Women against him as well, because it's all backstage politics and personal issues. Bottomline, we're now talking "What If's" and my theories on that have Lesnar continuing to be destructive, dominating and a huge deal for years to come - had he of stayed.

    Yes and Yes. If your match isn't LAST, then it's considered "mid-card". It's simple logic of card positioning. I'm not saying it wasn't billed as a top match ON the card - but it wasn't THE top match on the card, which made it "mid-card". Same with Taker-HHH from this year's Mania, Edge-Del Rio from this year and Rock-Hogan from X-8. I'm not saying all of those are mid-card type matches, but they didn't go on last - so they obviously weren't THE Main Event.

    As for the Primes of Rock and Austin, that is irrelevant when you factor in that multiple Diva's match-ups have went on AFTER Heavyweight title matches. Prime has nothing to do with it, if anything - it helps their position on the card based on their legendary status in the business. I'd say the only thing that has anything to do with position on a card is based on if it's for a World Championship, or how much time they wanted to give to 'said' match.

    Besides, you're wanting to compare a ton of Austin stuff that happened well before Lesnar was even competing for the Company. But you don't want to compare the Lesnar stuff when Austin was still with the Company, because "Austin got old". BS.

    No, my argument is that there are four ways Steve Austin can lose - and he's lost by all four (pin, submission, DQ and countout) in his career - so it stands to reason it could obviously happen again.

    As for not believing Lesnar could beat Austin by anything but DQ or Countout, and I'm calling you a dreamer with a dream. Lesnar has practically squashed the Undertaker at his own game. Lesnar HAS squashed Hulk Hogan, something Austin (past, or present) never even got close to doing. Lesnar could beat Austin in knowing he's done both of the previous two things, because Austin is not bigger than Hogan - and Hogan was fed to Lesnar.

    Steve Austin lost to Hacksaw Jim Duggan in 35 seconds, in 1994. Now, I will give you the slight benefit of the doubt that Austin wasn't "at his level" and was still climbing that 12-yr ladder before becoming anything relevant, but the overall point is if you lose to someone in under a minute - regardless of what stage of the career you're in - much less to a guy that's never amounted more than a mid-carder himself (Duggan), then you have problems.

    The other thing is the shear fact that you keep bringing up Cena, even back then, as nothing more than a joke of a mid-carder. If he wasn't talented enough to be there - then he wouldn't have eclipsed that of Lesnar AND Austin, now. So regardless of just beginning his Main Event push, or Mid-card status - Cena still was good enough and nothing to take lightly.

    Oh, and as far as Austin never opening a ppv - apparently the In Your House cards, and the 96 Summerslam pre-ppv show don't count, huh? Now, the point I'm mentioning this is because you used the word "never". Be more careful with how you word things, next time.

    Okay, so lets focus on Austin's career upon returning..

    No Mercy (2000);- v. Rikishi; ended in a no contest
    Survivor Series (2000);- v. Triple H.; ended in a no contest
    Armageddon; - v. lost to Kurt Angle in a 6-man HIAC (also w/ Undertaker, Rikishi, Rock, and HHH)

    Royal Rumble; - won Royal Rumble
    No Way Out; - v. Triple H.; lost.
    Wrestlemania; - d. The Rock (w/ help from McMahon)
    Backlash; w/ Triple H. d. the Undertaker & Kane
    Judgment Day; d. the Undetaker (w/ help from HHH)
    King of the Ring; d. Chris Benoit & Chris Jericho
    InVasion; lost to Team wCw (he turned on his own team)
    Summerslam; lost to Kurt Angle via DQ
    Unforgiven; lost to Kurt Angle via submission
    No Mercy; d. RVD & Kurt Angle
    Survivor Series; lost to Team WWE
    Vengeance; lost to Chris Jericho to crown first-ever Undisputed Champion.

    Royal Rumble; lost Royal Rumble
    No Way Out; lost to Chris Jericho
    Wrestlemania X-8; d. Scott Hall
    Backlash; lost to the Undertaker
    Judgment Day; d. Big Show & Ric Flair
    -- QUIT THE COMPANY AFTER REFUSING TO LOSE TO BROCK LESNAR --

    No Way Out; d. Eric Bischoff
    Wrestlemania XIX; lost to the Rock - retired.

    So, Austin's career following his almost year long leave went 9-11-2; he still had an overall worse record as a Main Eventer than Brock Lesnar. And one of those wins was against Eric Bischoff.

    Yes, I do count the Hardys, Cena, RVD, Holly and Show on the same level for the simple reason the Company promoted them in the same manner that the likes of Dude Love, Taker and Rock were promoted.

    Lesnar against RVD falls into a similar catagory as Austin v. the early ('99) Triple H.. Austin lost to him in 99.

    Lesnar against Big Show is similar to Austin against Taker, simply because Show was pushed as unstoppable and destructive.

    Lesnar against Cena would be equal to that of Austin/Rock, simply because the Rock - at the time of their main feud (their first Main Event feud) the Rock had only just got put in the Main Event and backed by a Corp. -- Cena forced his way against Lesnar, without anyone's help and earned it all by himself.

    You don't want to think they're the same for the mere fact that the likes of The Rock or Mankind are the top names in the Attitude era. However, the top guys during the period of time Lesnar was on top - was the Eddie Guerrero's and Big Show's. So they're one in the same.

    Besides, Lesnar has defeated Rock quicker and easier than Austin ever did. Same with Taker. Face it - Lesnar is the better of the two, inside the ring.

    IT IS!

    The Triple H that Steve Austin lost to in 1999 is NOT the same Triple H that was fighting in the period in time of Lesnar. The Undertaker that Austin was facing - was not the same, more skilled, more agile version that Lesnar faced.

    You're trying to make it sound like Austin accomplished more in the names he's defeated - but ignoring the fact that Lesnar has defeated all of the same names, if he faced them; some of which with greater ease.

    Ohhh, so now when you're in the final match on the card it's considered the Main Event and nothing else below it - which makes Austin 3-0 in "Main Events", but before when you argued that Austin/Rock at Mania XIX was considered a 'Main Event' - I guess you just decided to leave that loss out, huh?

    The only part of anything I'm not 100% sure about is this, however I'm going to say it and if I'm wrong will allow someone to prove it to me.. Brock Lesnar has defeated the Undertaker; but never lost to him. Ever.

    Lesnar won the ONLY Rumble he was ever apart of.

    Wait, WHAT?! (no, that isn't a pun for Austin)

    EVERY ppv match Austin's ever been in has been a "Main Event" - then Austin's "Main Event" record is pure shit, because I just posted back-to-back records and both before and after his almost 1-yr leave, he had a losing record both times.

    As for the bigger star gets the 'W' aspect.. uh, no, just no. If this were the case, we'd never have new development of next gen. talent. AH, such as it'd be the case here.. Austin would move over for Lesnar to shine and go through. See, it still works out in Lesnar's favor.

    Once again - no, just plain and simply no. If you want to bark out theory-endings, then the only one I see in my head is Austin coming to the ring with a note from a doctor saying he can't wrestle because he's still too gutless to face Lesnar in a match in fear of being broken. :icon_neutral:

    Now then, in all seriousness - Austin would go for a stunner and like more often than not against Main Event level opponents, they'd counter it by either shoving him off, or countering into their own finishers. Austin would turn his back and attempt grabbing Lesnar by the neck.. Lesnar would proceed to grab Austin and lift him up, turning him over in mid-air and placing him on his back, promptly delivering an F-5. End of match. Austin re-retires.
     
    #38
  14. ChickenWaffles

    ChickenWaffles Dark Match Jobber

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    10
    Austin is overrated. This match would be like a modern day Hogan vs Warrior. Austin would lose clean to the unstoppable monster. The fact that he bitched out instead of doing the job to Lesnar is surely proof that the WWE felt Lesnar was a suitable guy to pass the torch to?
     
    #39
  15. FitFinlay4Life

    FitFinlay4Life What's the craic?

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,908
    Likes Received:
    708
    First off - Austin is overrated? Accompanied by terrible WCW management, he was the figurehead of the WWF running WCW out of business. How can you be 'overrated' in this scenario? Ultimate Warrior - great comparison, history tells us that Hogan passing the torch to that waste of space was a mistake too!

    Vince wanted Lesnar to be the next Goldberg but at least Goldberg went over 9 months before he went over a heel Hollywood Hogan. The WWF were going to throw their face (in every way) to super green Lesnar after a month and a half to be squashed on RAW, Austin felt they were hotshotting the angle - I think they were right.

    Will, you are correct, Brock's tenure was spectacular but then again he wouldn't be in the semis otherwise. I have to admit I'm surprised though - with Edge being a favourite with you, I'd have thought you more an Austin man (who paid his dues through lower level belts and a notable tag team) than Lesnar (who was given everything on a plate and it still wasn't good enough for him). Or if you want, Steve Austin got his legacy the blue collar (or 'redneck', if you will) way by working for it whilst silver spoon Brock Lesnar was handed a monster gimmick because he could amateur wrestle at college.

    This is the semi final of a tournament with the greatest wrestlers (mostly) ever, anyone voted this far has a great chance at beating anyone else kayfabe. You want to compare records, Austin lost more often to a greater standard of opponent and Lesnar dominated all (with the possible exception of Angle) in the weaker half of the federation roster. Austin had wins and losses against the Rock and Undertaker and Brock beat both but Brock only faced these guys ONCE, over a series as long as Austin had with them, who's to say he wouldn't have a similar win / loss record.

    There seems to be a between the lines resonance in this thread of REWARDING Lesnar for his piss break length of a career. Personally, right up front I reward Austin for an actual legacy.
     
    #40
  16. stillboy21

    stillboy21 Pre-Show Stalwart

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    15
    I voted for Lesnar. I'm posting just incase this ends in a tie. I love Austin but I just want to see Lesnar win this one. Lesnar's a beast.
     
    #41
  17. Smartie

    Smartie Broski of the Week #22

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    48
    Oh, Hell Yeeah.

    If you're gonna make it in this business you have to whip ass not lick it, that's what stone cold does.
     
    #42

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"