ECW Region Finals: Edge vs. Steve Austin

[Slyfox696]

Yeah, cause Edge hasn't won a match against a hometown favorite, in their hometown - with popularity just as large as Austin, when the match was a regular match - or with a large disadvantage against Edge.

Oh, you know, like say for example when the rules stated if Edge got DQ'd or counted out, he'd still lose the title.. and he found a way to win, by finding an opportunity and taking it.

Yeah, Sly, he's never done that - has he..

Who are you talking about? I don't remember him ever beating Rock or Hogan in their hometowns...

You said popularity as large as Austin's, those are the only two guys you could name.

Okay, this is the last straw - this exact bit is what I'm sick and tired of. PROVE IT!

OK

You say this crap, like Austin was the only individual carrying the entire Company on his back.

No, I speak the truth, because I actually watched wrestling back in 1998. You should have too, it was fun.

But, I know you're wanting some kind of proof, so here you are...

Austin won the WWE title for the first time on March 29, 1998 at Wrestlemania 14. Excluding one 24 hour period, he was champion until September 28th. Allow us to look at ratings before and during his run as champion:

1998​

5-Jan-98 3.3
12-Jan-98 3.4
19-Jan-98 4
26-Jan-98 3.5
2-Feb-98 3.5
9-Feb-98 3.2
16-Feb-98 Not On
23-Feb-98 3.2
2-Mar-98 3.8
9-Mar-98 3.6
16-Mar-98 Not On
23-Mar-98 3.6
30-Mar-98 3.8
6-Apr-98 4.7
13-Apr-98 4.6
20-Apr-98 4.4
28-Apr-98 5.7
4-May-98 5.5
11-May-98 4.3
18-May-98 5.3
25-May-98 4.2
1-Jun-98 4.4
8-Jun-98 4.3
15-Jun-98 4.3
22-Jun-98 4.3
29-Jun-98 5.4
6-Jul-98 4
13-Jul-98 4.7
20-Jul-98 5
27-Jul-98 4.9
3-Aug-98 4.9
10-Aug-98 4.5
17-Aug-98 4.2
24-Aug-98 4.7
31-Aug-98 Not On
7-Sep-98 Not On
14-Sep-98 4
21-Sep-98 4
28-Sep-98 4



So, what you see there is that we went from the low 3s, to peaking in the mid 5s. You're going to tell me that's not a substantial improvement? And then, whenever Austin lost the belt, that's when his feud with McMahon started heating up. As proof of this, I direct you to the 1999 Royal Rumble, when Rock vs. Foley was the afterthought to the McMahon vs. Austin encounter in the Rumble. When this feud started heating up, so did the ratings again...

5-Oct-98 4.55
12-Oct-98 4.8
19-Oct-98 5
26-Oct-98 4.5
2-Nov-98 4.8
9-Nov-98 5
16-Nov-98 5.5
23-Nov-98 4.9
30-Nov-98 5
7-Dec-98 5.15
14-Dec-98 5.2
21-Dec-98 4.7
28-Dec-98 4.9
4-Jan-99 5.7
11-Jan-99 5.5
18-Jan-99 5.6
25-Jan-99 5.5
1-Feb-99 5.9
8-Feb-99 Not On
15-Feb-99 5.9
22-Feb-99 5.5
29-Feb-99 6.3
8-Mar-99 6.4
15-Mar-99 5.8
22-Mar-99 6.4

As you can see, the ratings began to grow larger and larger towards Wrestlemania...guess what the Wrestlemania draw was...Steve Austin regaining his World Title from the Corporation. Steve Austin wins the title on March 28, 1999, and holds it until May 23, 1999. The ratings were as follows:

5-Apr-99 5.8
12-Apr-99 6.3
19-Apr-99 6.1
26-Apr-99 6
3-May-99 6.4
10-May-99 8.1
17-May-99 6.4



So, during Austin's surge of popularity, WWE Raw went from low 3s to low 6s, peaking with an 8.1 at one point. And that doesn't include Austin's original rise to popularity in 1997, in which we saw ratings go from 2s to 3s.

And you're going to tell me that Austin didn't revolutionize the business? C'mon Will, you're smarter than that. Steve Austin WAS Attitude. It worked because he worked. I'm as big of a Rock and Foley fan as anyone, but even I know that Hogan is 1, Austin is 2, and Rock is 3, and there is no debate about it.

If Austin revolutionized the business.. then Edge is the 3rd greatest World Heavyweight Champion in Wrestling history - because he's behind only Ric Flair and Triple H for as many reigns as Champion.

Being picked to win one of three World titles during lean ratings years now makes you great?

How the fuck does that work?

Austin didn't single handedly revolutionize shit.. he helped, just like Edge has helped. Austin didn't revolutionize anything alone though, so quit making it sound like he did. This argument is so beneath you, it's disgusting and revolting.

The fuck he didn't revolutionize. Hogan and the nWo created the cool heel...Austin made it standard. Austin was Attitude, he DID double the wrestling audience, he made Vince a billionaire, and is one of only a handful of wrestlers whose name is known in the mainstream.

I thought you were some type of good debater, Sly? Is this all you have?

I'm sorry Will, I can only embarrass you so much in one post. Feel free to reply to this post, so I can do it some more.

Maybe you should.. at least then you wouldn't of just came in here, and looked like a lot less than what I ever thought you were.

No, I'm not scouring the thread looking for bullshit. Hell, your post is more than enough bullshit to read.

Like I said, feel free to list the reasons in a nice neat order, and I'll be happy to scoff at and ridicule them.

Once again, he went 5-0 at Wrestlemania, before losing by pinfall to the Undertaker, and being taken out of the MITB match, and the odd man out (not being pinned) at this year's version.

Yeah.. 5-1-2 is more like it.

You can't be serious with this.

He was 5-0 at Wrestlemania? Against who? His first two wins were tag team wins with Christian, which means nothing in a singles match. His win at Wrestlemania 18 was in his hometown was against perennial upper card jobber Booker T. His win at Wrestlemania 21 wasn't in a 1-on-1 match, and according to you, that doesn't really count. And his win at Wrestlemania 22 was against a hardcore match against a 41 year old man who'd been retired for over 5 years and was being beaten by everyone. Who gives a fuck if he's 5-0 if doesn't beat anyone impressive to do it? All 5 of those wins were undercard matches, with guys who don't even come close to being on Steve Austin's level in his prime.

And Will, I'm sorry to tell you this, but in wrestling, a draw is when there is no winner. When there is a winner, that means that everyone else is a loser. So Edge is 0-3 in his last three Wrestlemanias, two of which were for World titles.

You're just going to have to accept that.

Winning NINE Heavyweight Championships, regardless of length, is a pretty big accomplishment.

Not when there are THREE World titles to be passed around, and 6 hours of TV to do it in. Austin won 6 World titles, when there was only ONE World title and only 2 hours for Raw.

Edge's 9 titles > Austin's longer reigns.

Austin's 1998 reign > every World title that Edge owns

This tournament bounces in and out of Kayfabe it's so ridiculous. And the same statement you just said against someone voting for Edge, I could also use against Austin.

Try actually reading what I responded to. It'll help you not sound so ignorant.

Say for example, all the people (ie. you, included) who claim because Austin sold a ton of t-shirts and made movies and is a recognizable name because of it -- he should win. Riiiggghhtt..

Not even close. Way to completely butcher the entire concept of what wrestling is about.

He sold t-shirts and is a recognizable name because he's GOOD. You don't do those things if you're not good. You know...like Edge.

Maybe he isn't, but I am. And unlike almost (excluding xfear, only) every single Austin supporter - I've pointed out both individual's accomplishments.. and explained in great detail why Edge should, could, and would win.

Lists, Will...give me a trim list.

VOTE Austin​

Already did.

 

[a0161613]

I'm not going to agree with Ricky's Crash Holly comparison - it made me LOL but its quite ridiculous. I see similarities and maybe in some ways Edge is a ME version of that character. But to say Holly was better at doing it is bizarre.

Edge has taken that sneakiness and run with it, through MitB to about seven of his nine world titles. He has taken the use of lesser characters (Lita, Vicki, Chavo, Edgeheads and of course, Big Will himself ) and used Raven-like brainwashing techniques to take awesome punishment on his behalf. And it worked to never-seen-before levels. That's some record and I can totally appreciate that.

Personally I feel that Austin was a massive focal point of the biggest booms in wrestling history. He will run Edge really close because he has the support of many, who like me, grew up watching him. He was the man who as much as anyone carried the WWF's Attitude era and then the Invasion too. That's why I voted for him and I will be honest about the fact that I am surprised that he is not winning. I thought he had a tough break because I thought Stone Cold was one of maybe three guys who would put him out.

Edge will continue to have my support if he goes through.

Will, I'd argue with you point for point but I'm not sure I have the patience - good work on these posts btw.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Who are you talking about? I don't remember him ever beating Rock or Hogan in their hometowns...

You said popularity as large as Austin's, those are the only two guys you could name.

Uhm, yeah - no. John Cena.

Cena is to the business, today, what Hogan was to it in the 80's-early 90's, and Austin was to it in the late 90's.

And Edge beat him, in Cena's hometown, with the rules stacked against him. (yes, Cena beat him back - same stips a month later, but I'm proving the point Edge has done it before, and could do it again)

And Cena is better than Austin. By the understanding that Cena's been a more popular (active) figure in the sport, from at least 2004-2009. (5 yrs) Austin's been a popular (active) figure in the sport, from 1997-1999, 2001 (3 yrs)

No, I speak the truth, because I actually watched wrestling back in 1998. You should have too, it was fun.

But, I know you're wanting some kind of proof, so here you are...

I did, I noticed a lot of other people as well. You know, cause my lips weren't plastered to the television screen on Austin's butt, like your's apparently were.

Austin won the WWE title for the first time on March 29, 1998 at Wrestlemania 14. Excluding one 24 hour period, he was champion until September 28th. Allow us to look at ratings before and during his run as champion:

So, what you see there is that we went from the low 3s, to peaking in the mid 5s. You're going to tell me that's not a substantial improvement? And then, whenever Austin lost the belt, that's when his feud with McMahon started heating up. As proof of this, I direct you to the 1999 Royal Rumble, when Rock vs. Foley was the afterthought to the McMahon vs. Austin encounter in the Rumble. When this feud started heating up, so did the ratings again...

As you can see, the ratings began to grow larger and larger towards Wrestlemania...guess what the Wrestlemania draw was...Steve Austin regaining his World Title from the Corporation. Steve Austin wins the title on March 28, 1999, and holds it until May 23, 1999. The ratings were as follows:

So, during Austin's surge of popularity, WWE Raw went from low 3s to low 6s, peaking with an 8.1 at one point. And that doesn't include Austin's original rise to popularity in 1997, in which we saw ratings go from 2s to 3s.

Sly, I am most certainly NOT going to look at another one of your ridiculously stupid pie-charts.

Those ratings were partly because of Steve Austin, without question I will say that. But to come fully out, like you have, and claim because he was their Champion - that hes mainly, fully and the biggest reason for them - is a piss poor argument, and entirely opinionated.

You can't prove all those millions who tuned in - did it mainly for Austin, so much as McMahon, The Rock, D-X, the Undertaker, or any number of other reasons.

Austin was a part of the Attitude Era, not the whole fucking thing. When will you learn this?

And you're going to tell me that Austin didn't revolutionize the business? C'mon Will, you're smarter than that. Steve Austin WAS Attitude. It worked because he worked. I'm as big of a Rock and Foley fan as anyone, but even I know that Hogan is 1, Austin is 2, and Rock is 3, and there is no debate about it.

Did I say he never revolutionized it? I said he helped with it. And he did. Revolutionizing indicates he, solely, changed the entire landscape. At what point did he do something that no one else had done before?

Using machinery to destroy stuff? The n.W.o were already doing backstage destruction segments. E.C.W was, too. W.C.W even used a monster truck to destroy Hogan's bike in 1994-95, I believe it was.

Because he was the anti-hero? You do realize Bret Hart was the same type of "anti-hero" to the entire world, with exception to America, right?

Being picked to win one of three World titles during lean ratings years now makes you great?

How the fuck does that work?

So, you're saying winning a World Heavyweight Championship isn't a major accomplishment? So I guess Ric Flair, Triple H, Edge, Steve Austin, The Rock, Bret Hart and roughly every other Heavyweight Champion is just nothing special.

Ohh, but this is where you give the lame argument of "But Will, it was when there was only ONE title, not THREE". Really Sly, that tireless argument? You do realize just because there's three now, it's not like ALL THREE are defended on the same brand all the time, right?

Each brand is like it's own Company. And Edge has been atop the two major shows, multiple times. Besides, what more could you want? It's not like Edge, nor I, can tell McMahon bring the brands back together to prove Edge would still be the top Champion.

The fuck he didn't revolutionize. Hogan and the nWo created the cool heel...Austin made it standard. Austin was Attitude, he DID double the wrestling audience, he made Vince a billionaire, and is one of only a handful of wrestlers whose name is known in the mainstream.

How did Austin make it standard, when you just said the n.W.o (who was running WITH Austin) made it, to begin with? So, the n.W.o created it, Austin stole it, and just refused to stop stealing it.. yet the n.W.o continued running with it and working it just the same.

Right.. yep, that proves Austin did a lot.. sure, Sly, sure.

HE, didn't double shit. HE, didn't make Vince a billionaire, but I will agree HE is one of SEVERAL Wrestlers whose name is known in the mainstream.. because he's made a movie, and been thrust into everyone's eye-sight.

The Attitude Era, (Rock, D-X, Foley, Ministry, Corp, McMahons and Austin - ALL doubled the audience, and made McMahon billions) Quit making it sound like Austin did it solo.. he didn't.

I'm sorry Will, I can only embarrass you so much in one post. Feel free to reply to this post, so I can do it some more.

This coming from a guy repeating himself, about opinionated thoughts. Not facts. Yes Sly, because YOU said it - why, it must be true. Uhm, why again?

No, I'm not scouring the thread looking for bullshit. Hell, your post is more than enough bullshit to read.

Likewise, your silly use of ratings too. Especially to try and play off Austin doing that - solo. Really Sly? Really??

Like I said, feel free to list the reasons in a nice neat order, and I'll be happy to scoff at and ridicule them.

Ugh, if you aren't gonna take the time to find them, why should I bother? You already voted anyways.. so you're pointless to me. I'm still more than fine with debating you though.

Just not being your lackie in giving you everything to debate me with. Go find it, if you want.

He was 5-0 at Wrestlemania? Against who? His first two wins were tag team wins with Christian, which means nothing in a singles match.

Ah, but you said "big match" - you never indicated what type. And the T.L.C match(es) were arguably Main Events in their own right for Mania 2000, and Mania X-7.

Both the Dudleyz and Hardys had just as much opportunity and chance to win those matches, especially the second one - since Edge & Christian had won two from the time before leading up to that - and no one assumed they'd win the third.

His win at Wrestlemania 18 was in his hometown was against perennial upper card jobber Booker T.

Nice way to sugar-coat it. Booker T, the "upper card jobber" that just happened to be a 5-time W.C.W Heavyweight Champion.. right, Sly, yep.. jobber.

His win at Wrestlemania 21 wasn't in a 1-on-1 match, and according to you, that doesn't really count.

You seem to think they do. And a victory is a victory over whatever the stipulation of the match is. However, if you didn't get pinned, submit, counted out, or DQ'd.. it's not a loss.

The Royal Rumble awards the winner w/ a "victory" but doesn't count losses on everyone's record. Same with the Money in the Bank match. Don't believe me, look one year after the match Edge was carried out of - being unable to finish - at them pushing Edge as still being undefeated, 5-0, at Mania.

Seems You're the only guy thinking it's an actual loss.

And his win at Wrestlemania 22 was against a hardcore match against a 41 year old man who'd been retired for over 5 years and was being beaten by everyone.

Still a win.

Who gives a fuck if he's 5-0 if doesn't beat anyone impressive to do it?

Each individual (or Team) he's defeated has been someone of impressive standards in Wrestling. Claiming Foley, Booker T, Jericho, Christian, Benoit, Kane & the Dudleyz & Hardys are all un-impressive is bullshit and you know it.

I'll give you Benjamin though, but at that time - he was still the most recent longest reigning Intercontinental Champion I believe. Still, yeah, Benjamin was unimpressive.

All 5 of those wins were undercard matches, with guys who don't even come close to being on Steve Austin's level in his prime.

You mean, like Savio Vega? Or like Scott Hall?

Maybe you're referring to the only guy he could seemingly beat on the Mania stage - yet lost to, in what many would consider his final true match.. against, The Rock.

And Will, I'm sorry to tell you this, but in wrestling, a draw is when there is no winner. When there is a winner, that means that everyone else is a loser. So Edge is 0-3 in his last three Wrestlemanias, two of which were for World titles.

You're just going to have to accept that.

Austin lost his last Mania match as well, and that was a Singles match. Not to mention, (not counting Bischoff) his last real match.

Not when there are THREE World titles to be passed around, and 6 hours of TV to do it in. Austin won 6 World titles, when there was only ONE World title and only 2 hours for Raw.

You say that as if Edge is going to each television show, every week, winning Championships. Whether you realize it or not, you're actually boasting Edge more than dissing him.

Once again, to WIN a Heavyweight Championship.. NINE TIMES.. is more than anyone; except Ric Flair or Triple H, can say. That includes Austin.

Austin's 1998 reign > every World title that Edge owns

Opinionated theory. Holds no truth to it.

He sold t-shirts and is a recognizable name because he's GOOD. You don't do those things if you're not good. You know...like Edge.

Edge has sold t-shirts too, and has brought arguably the fans favorite gimmick on shirts. They love his sexual t-shirts, and rated R stuff.

I'm NOT saying he's sold more than Austin - but for two reasons. First, he doesn't have half the merch. Austin has had. Two, he's a heel. You aren't suppose to be buying tons of heel merch, right?

Lists, Will...give me a trim list.

For the last time.. Go find them.

And once again, because I know you'll give me a response worth reading..

It took Austin TWELVE YEARS to make the following 3 of his career something impressive, then he retired. He's done, he won't ever accomplish anything else.

On the flip side; It took Edge roughly EIGHT YEARS to make the following 3 and counting of his career something impressive. And Edge isn't retired, and is likely only going to collect MORE Main Event Mania spots, MORE Heavyweight Championships, and MORE overall accolade's.. before ending up in the Hall of Fame, just like Stone Cold.

 

[NYSandman]

Edge is the future. Austin, while beloved, has had his time pass.

Also, this is a regular rules match. Technical skills are a must, and I believe Edge has Austin beat as far as in ring abilities.

When it comes down to it, Edge will counter whatever Austin throws at him. And, Edge most definitely can get under Austin's skin, forcing a DQ situation.

Both men have fast finishers, the stunner and the spear. But, Edge is quicker on his feet. If he can avoid the stunner, it's a spear for sure.

The younger, hungrier guy will prevail.

Edge to win it.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved again because even I don't have the spare time needed to respond to a Will post. However, the above post was riddled with so many inaccuracies I just had to come in.

1) This match is conducted in primes. Who is the future or not is irrelevant. I have no idea who the younger man is in their primes, but I don't think it particularly matters in professional wrestling.

2) Edge isn't a technical wrestler. And even if he was, the likes of Kurt Angle and Bret Hart couldn't even counter most of Austin's moves.

3) I don't know how you turn a missed stunner into a spear. The spear's a weak finisher anyway.

4) Austin is the colder, more calculated of the two. If anybody's going to get pissed off and overreact, it's Edge.

I think that about does it.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved again because even I don't have the spar time needed to respond to a Will post. However, the above post was riddled with so many inaccuracies I just had to come in.

Wait, my post had inaccuracies? Where. Or someone else's. I'll assume it was someone else, because I don't post inaccuracies. Especially about Edge. Maybe theories, or opinionated comments the likes of Austin supporters in their ever-boring quest to prove Austin was the main/sole individual to carry the Attitude Era. (lies)

1) This match is conducted in primes. Who is the future or not is irrelevant. I have no idea who the younger man is in their primes, but I don't think it particularly matters ir=f professional wrestling.

I'll never understand the two "unofficial rules" of voting by Prime & Kayfabe. But from what I've gathered, people claim Austin's Prime was the Attitude Era. Well, that'd be 3 yrs. (97-99)

Edge's Prime, people have said, would be the instant he won his first Heavyweight title.. so 2006, and currently still going. So that'd be 3yrs and counting.

How can Austin, a guy who's best year's in Wrestling were barely 3 yrs apparently - defeat a guy who's arguably had more combined years, better off.

Up until the 97-99 time frame, Austin lost more than won, and was barely relevant to anything. On the flip side, ever since 2001 (Edge's KOTR title) Edge has won more than lost - and has captured multiple accolade's.

Edge's done almost everything Austin's done, through accomplishments, only more so. Take a look.

Heavyweight Titles:
Austin: 6 (will never likely win another)
Edge: 9 (WILL likely win several more)

Intercontinental Titles:
Austin: 2
Edge: 5

Tag Team Championship Titles:
Austin: 4
Edge: 12

KOTR Title:
Austin: 1996 (defeated Marc Mero, and injured Jake Roberts)
Edge: 2001 (defeated Rhyno, and Kurt Angle w/ Shane's help)

The only thing Austin's accomplished that Edge hasn't - is winning the Royal Rumble. So unless this match suddenly develops that type of gimmick, I don't see how Austin's prime beats out Edge's.

By the way - what makes title victories = the better prime, you might ask? Obviously because it shows how much that individual is in, or around, Championship, big match, situations. And Edge has clearly had about twice as many as Austin.

2) Edge isn't a technical wrestler. And even if he was, the likes of Kurt Angle and Bret Hart couldn't even counter most of Austin's moves.

Bret Hart and Kurt Angle have constantly defeated Steve Austin, quite possibly more so than anyone else. Proving that having technical skill shows it's one of Austin's main weaknesses.

3) I don't know how you turn a missed stunner into a spear. The spear's a weak finisher anyway.

Austin goes for a Stunner, turns his back, gets shoved away, turns around - into a Spear. 1-2-3, it's over, Edge wins. (something like that, I would assume)

4) Austin is the colder, more calculated of the two. If anybody's going to get pissed off and overreact, it's Edge.

Edge might get worked up, but is way too smart to get DQ'd.. once again, look back to the Cena/Edge match in which Edge knew he couldn't get DQ'd or he'd lose everything.

He was calculating in that match-up, and waited until the perfect moment to strike with a cheap shot. It proved he could win, with the odds heavily against him. Just like here.

I think that about does it.

Yep.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I'll never understand the two "unofficial rules" of voting by Prime & Kayfabe. But from what I've gathered, people claim Austin's Prime was the Attitude Era. Well, that'd be 3 yrs. (97-99)

Edge's Prime, people have said, would be the instant he won his first Heavyweight title.. so 2006, and currently still going. So that'd be 3yrs and counting.

How can Austin, a guy who's best year's in Wrestling were barely 3 yrs apparently - defeat a guy who's arguably had more combined years, better off.

Are you taking into account that Austin was the top dog in the whole promotion and Edge is barely top dog on his brand?

Up until the 97-99 time frame, Austin lost more than won, and was barely relevant to anything. On the flip side, ever since 2001 (Edge's KOTR title) Edge has won more than lost - and has captured multiple accolade's.

But Edge loses all the time now! Not good considering:

Edge's Prime, people have said, would be the instant he won his first Heavyweight title.. so 2006, and currently still going. So that'd be 3yrs and counting.

Against lower level competition no less.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Bret Hart and Kurt Angle have constantly defeated Steve Austin, quite possibly more so than anyone else. Proving that having technical skill shows it's one of Austin's main weaknesses.

You're making Angle and Hart's wins out to be more than they are by using "constantly". You're making it sound like he lost as much as Edge does. He had a brief feud with Hart before his prime, then several mini-feuds with Angle in his prime. I wouldn't be surprised if he won more matches than Kurt did.

Besides, I was using them as examples to show that Austin getting his moves countered is something that doesn't happen. I also maintain that any technical skills Edge does possess are nothing close to those of Angle and Hart, even in the days before he dramatically scaled back his moveset.

Austin goes for a Stunner, turns his back, gets shoved away, turns around - into a Spear. 1-2-3, it's over, Edge wins. (something like that, I would assume)

Edge goes for spear, misses (again!), walks into a stunner. Alternatively, Edge hits spear, his opponent kicks out (again!).

Edge might get worked up, but is way too smart to get DQ'd.. once again, look back to the Cena/Edge match in which Edge knew he couldn't get DQ'd or he'd lose everything.

Which match is this? It wasn't the Royal Rumble match where Cena made him out to be a paper champion of Rey Mysterio proportions, I take it.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Are you taking into account that Austin was the top dog in the whole promotion and Edge is barely top dog on his brand?




But Edge loses all the time now! Not good considering:



Against lower level competition no less.

Each time Edge was Champion, he was the top guy on his brand. And he's arguably the best (top) heel in the Company, as a whole. Randy Orton might have Legacy and once again be a Champion - but for the most part, people always felt Edge was better than Orton. And no one is above them.

As for Edge losing all the time, the fact on this is nothing more or less than what it is to promote those around him. But that goes outside of the lines of "kayfabe".

Finally, how could you consider it lower level competition? Edge has done what Austin couldn't when regarding the Heavyweight title.. Edge has defeated Triple H to win a Championship. (Regardless of how) And arguably, Edge's win over Triple H (now) is vastly superior than Austin's matches against the Game (then) just because Triple H, like Edge, is still in his so-called Prime and winning matches and titles.

Overall, the level of competition is still greatly superior to me, than what it was in the Attitude Era. Look once more.

Then: The Rock, Mankind, The Undertaker, Kane, D-X, McMahon's. That's not counting the Ministry (that weren't Main Event) or the Corp. (also not Main Event) Triple H can even be added for shits and giggles, dispite truly not being a main point in the ME until after he won the title - at which point, Austin never beat him to regain it. EVER..

Now: John Cena, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Randy Orton, Big Show, Kane, the Undertaker, Batista, Rey Mysterio, Jericho, Punk, the Hardys, and the list continues to grow.

While more "mid-card sized" Wrestlers, like Mysterio, Punk, Hardy & Jericho are being added in.. their abilities and talent aren't deminished to the likes of D-X, or the Rock. (talent and ability, not popularity and t-shirt sells)

Edge has more opponents of greater value, than Austin's ever had during one specific time.

 

[D-Man]

This entire argument is giving me jock itch. I cannot believe how stern everyone is about their point of view. Most of the arguments are redundant and ridiculous, in my opinion. But I'm with Uncle Sam on this... I'm sick of reading them all without putting my two cents in. Hopefully I'm not as redundant with this post... I swear I'll try to keep it short.

Will, you totally kick ass. But I wouldn't be pushing myself on WZ unless I got into a debate with one of the best, so here we go

Wait, my post had inaccuracies? Where. Or someone else's. I'll assume it was someone else, because I don't post inaccuracies. Especially about Edge. Maybe theories, or opinionated comments the likes of Austin supporters in their ever-boring quest to prove Austin was the main/sole individual to carry the Attitude Era. (lies)

Very true. Your facts are dead-on and I applaud you for that.

How can Austin, a guy who's best year's in Wrestling were barely 3 yrs apparently - defeat a guy who's arguably had more combined years, better off.

This is SOOOO unfair. Austin was very badly injured while in the middle of his WWE prime. If he never got dropped on his head by Owen Hart, who KNOWS how many more years and title reigns he could've produced. We need to remember what he did and the impact he made during his HEALTHY time in the WWE. (And please don't argue that Edge also had neck surgery and is still wrestling, therefore he's tougher. That's a load of crap.)

Austin is a hero... a legend... a pop-culture icon... and is praised by morons like us that think we know everything about wrestling as well as past, present, and future wrestlers along with owners and operators of the biggest and best wrestling organizations in the world. I'm not saying that Edge isn't any of these things. Someday, he might be. But as of right now, Edge is still creating his legacy. Austin already did that (and then some) in a shorter time span. Hell, the guy is as hot now as he was back then and he officially hasn't been in a match since 2003. If you say anything different, you're only kidding yourself.

Up until the 97-99 time frame, Austin lost more than won, and was barely relevant to anything. On the flip side, ever since 2001 (Edge's KOTR title) Edge has won more than lost - and has captured multiple accolade's.

I'd really like to see actual records of this as proof. To me, this is mere speculation. Come on Will, you're better than that! LOL

Edge's done almost everything Austin's done, through accomplishments, only more so. Take a look.

Heavyweight Titles:
Austin: 6 (will never likely win another)
Edge: 9 (WILL likely win several more)

Intercontinental Titles:
Austin: 2
Edge: 5

Tag Team Championship Titles:
Austin: 4
Edge: 12

KOTR Title:
Austin: 1996 (defeated Marc Mero, and injured Jake Roberts)
Edge: 2001 (defeated Rhyno, and Kurt Angle w/ Shane's help)

The only thing Austin's accomplished that Edge hasn't - is winning the Royal Rumble. So unless this match suddenly develops that type of gimmick, I don't see how Austin's prime beats out Edge's.

By the way - what makes title victories = the better prime, you might ask? Obviously because it shows how much that individual is in, or around, Championship, big match, situations. And Edge has clearly had about twice as many as Austin.

UGH... this is such shit. ALL of it. I have a billion arguments against this and not enough time at work to writ them all. But, I'll try to do it anyway

Amounts of title reigns mean absolutely nothing these days. They're giving world titles away like candy on Halloween. It's the meaning behind their most important wins/reigns that make the difference here. Yes, they both won KOTR. Yes, they both won the IC title on multiple occasions as well as the world title. But in big match situations (namely Wrestlemania), more impact was made when Austin WON his titles and when Edge LOST his. Other PPV's during the year don't produce a new "era" in wrestling (a.k.a. "The Austin Era has begun!!")

And we really need to stop justifying Edge's title reigns as being ALL reigns of importance. We ALL know that two fo the reigns were stolen via MITB briefcases. But it still makes no difference. His title wins weren't ground breaking. Hell, he never even won a title at Wrestlemania!! But he did LOSE it...

Bret Hart and Kurt Angle have constantly defeated Steve Austin, quite possibly more so than anyone else. Proving that having technical skill shows it's one of Austin's main weaknesses.

It's not his weakness... it's just not his forte. Just because he lost to people with FAR MORE technical skill doesn't mean that he has no technical skill, therefor making him 'weak.' That's such a shit argument.

Austin goes for a Stunner, turns his back, gets shoved away, turns around - into a Spear. 1-2-3, it's over, Edge wins. (something like that, I would assume)

Isn't the spear a move that has been kicked out of more than the Stunner?? Maybe Edge would his the spear the way you explain it, but that doesn't mean that Austin won't kick out.

He was calculating in that match-up, and waited until the perfect moment to strike with a cheap shot. It proved he could win, with the odds heavily against him. Just like here.

This only proves that certain wrestlers can bullshit their way to a win in ANY match. Austin can cheat just as much as Edge. Austin can use just as much otuside interference as Edge. They've both used lackies to do their dirty work in the past... they've both manipulated GM's and people in power in the WWE to get their way and either win or keep championships...

This is just another argument thrown out there to make it look like it favors Edge when it actually favors BOTH opponents.


Ok, so hopefully I did ok with this reply. I hope I don't get crucified Hahahaha...

 

[TheOneBigWill]

You're making Angle and Hart's wins out to be more than they are by using "constantly". You're making it sound like he lost as much as Edge does. He had a brief feud with Hart before his prime, then several mini-feuds with Angle in his prime. I wouldn't be surprised if he won more matches than Kurt did.

Besides, I was using them as examples to show that Austin getting his moves countered is something that doesn't happen. I also maintain that any technical skills Edge does possess are nothing close to those of Angle and Hart, even in the days before he dramatically scaled back his moveset.



Edge goes for spear, misses (again!), walks into a stunner. Alternatively, Edge hits spear, his opponent kicks out (again!).



Which match is this? It wasn't the Royal Rumble match where Cena made him out to be a paper champion of Rey Mysterio proportions, I take it.

Well, look it up then. I can't guarantee Angle's defeated Austin more.. but I know for a shear fact Angle defeated Austin in back-to-back Pay per views. Once because Austin was afraid he was going to lose his title, so he intentionally got DQ'd.. and then he finally did drop his belt. In December of that year, Austin beat Angle to go on and lose to Jericho, though.

And how can you say Edge isn't as technical? He might not be of Angle/Hart like abilities to a Tee, but he wrestled toe-to-toe with Angle and won. That says a lot about his technical abilities.

Edge can hit a spear big enough to level the Big Show. I doubt Austin's beer belly is going to be as hard as Show's gut, and yet Show was leveled for a 3-count. So naturally, Austin would be as well.

And finally, Sam, it was the Summerslam 2006 match-up. Cena's hometown, if Edge gets counted out or DQ'd he loses the title anyways. Edge found a way to win, when the odds were up against him unlike any other.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Each time Edge was Champion, he was the top guy on his brand.

Are we ignoring his first title reign when Triple H & John Cena were to top guys on Raw? Shouldn't a champion always be the top guy anyway?

And he's arguably the best (top) heel in the Company, as a whole. Randy Orton might have Legacy and once again be a Champion - but for the most part, people always felt Edge was better than Orton. And no one is above them.

I think the company, WWE, would disagree. Randy Orton is the top heel.

As for Edge losing all the time, the fact on this is nothing more or less than what it is to promote those around him. But that goes outside of the lines of "kayfabe".

But Edge still loses all the time, correct?

Finally, how could you consider it lower level competition?

C.M. Punk & Jeff Hardy are on the same level or higher than The Rock or Triple H?

Edge has done what Austin couldn't when regarding the Heavyweight title..

Well of course, Steve Austin has never won the Heavyweight Championship. It was bought into WWE when he was taking a holiday and he only had two or three matches before he retired. He never challenged for that belt.

Edge has defeated Triple H to win a Championship. (Regardless of how) And arguably, Edge's win over Triple H (now) is vastly superior than Austin's matches against the Game (then) just because Triple H, like Edge, is still in his so-called Prime and winning matches and titles.

In that case Edge was eliminated from an Elimination Chamber match after a couple of minutes to lose a title. Which highlights how prone he is to just rushing in and being careless.

I fail to see how an Edge/Triple H match is better in any way than an Austin/Triple H match. Hardly anybody remembers Edge vs. Triple H at last years Bash, and it wasn't even a year ago. People still want to see Three Stages Of Hell matches because of Triple H & Austin 8 years ago.

Overall, the level of competition is still greatly superior to me, than what it was in the Attitude Era. Look once more.

Look once more? Dude, I didn't even look the first time.

Then: The Rock, Mankind, The Undertaker, Kane, D-X, McMahon's. That's not counting the Ministry (that weren't Main Event) or the Corp. (also not Main Event) Triple H can even be added for shits and giggles, dispite truly not being a main point in the ME until after he won the title - at which point, Austin never beat him to regain it. EVER..

Now: John Cena, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Randy Orton, Big Show, Kane, the Undertaker, Batista, Rey Mysterio, Jericho, Punk, the Hardys, and the list continues to grow.

I'll only do comparistons with wrestlers that both of them didn't face. So goodbye to undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Mick Foley, Big Show, Kane, Jeff Hardy, Matt Hardy & Jericho.

The Rock > John Cena
Vince McMahon > Randy Orton

That's about it. Vince is a better heel than Orton & The Rock is a bigger star than John Cena.

I fail to see how Rey Mysterio is a better level of competition now in comparison to X-Pac in 1999.

While more "mid-card sized" Wrestlers, like Mysterio, Punk, Hardy & Jericho are being added in.. their abilities and talent aren't deminished to the likes of D-X, or the Rock. (talent and ability, not popularity and t-shirt sells)

Mysterio & Punk are the only ones Austin didn't kick the shit into on some random episode of Raw that nobody remembers.

Surely as somebody who doesn't go for the whole ''prime'' thing you must allow overall popularity to come into play.

 

[justinsayne]

Well, look it up then. I can't guarantee Angle's defeated Austin more.. but I know for a shear fact Angle defeated Austin in back-to-back Pay per views. Once because Austin was afraid he was going to lose his title, so he intentionally got DQ'd.. and then he finally did drop his belt. In December of that year, Austin beat Angle to go on and lose to Jericho, though.

Ok Angle beat Austin when he wasn't even in his prime, he was nearing the end of his career, adn Edge beat Angle while he was coming into his prime so this is irrelevant

And how can you say Edge isn't as technical? He might not be of Angle/Hart like abilities to a Tee, but he wrestled toe-to-toe with Angle and won. That says a lot about his technical abilities.

Austin can wrestle a technical match about as well as edge can, look at his matches in WCW, he went toe to toe with guys like Steamboat for fuck sake, you don't get much more technical than that, also this match would no doubt eventually degenerate into a brawl, as almost every match Austin wrestles does

Edge can hit a spear big enough to level the Big Show. I doubt Austin's beer belly is going to be as hard as Show's gut, and yet Show was leveled for a 3-count. So naturally, Austin would be as well.

Alright, if I were to compare Edge to any superstar Austin has faced in the past I would say Edge's style is prolly most similer to HBK, if you think about it the Spear is about as effective as Sweet Chin Music, and both can be hit out of anywhere, that being said Austin has beaten HBK, he countered the SCM and hit him with a stunner and beat him, he would likely do the same thing here, he'd find away to couter the spear (it can be done, I know this because it has been done) and he would hit a stunner for the win

And finally, Sam, it was the Summerslam 2006 match-up. Cena's hometown, if Edge gets counted out or DQ'd he loses the title anyways. Edge found a way to win, when the odds were up against him unlike any other.

So...no wrestle has ever had the odds more stack against him and still found a way to win than Austin, Austin owns Edge in this category

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Well, look it up then. I can't guarantee Angle's defeated Austin more..

Probably because, as the biggest star in the company, Austin didn't lose much at House Shows. His main opponent was Angle. Probably because Angle was a bump machine and uber worker. They could have good matches together with Austin putting in a minimal ammount of effort.

but I know for a shear fact Angle defeated Austin in back-to-back Pay per views. Once because Austin was afraid he was going to lose his title, so he intentionally got DQ'd.. and then he finally did drop his belt. In December of that year, Austin beat Angle to go on and lose to Jericho, though.

Has Edge never lost on back to back Pay-Per-Views? Ah yes, this year no less. No Way Out he lost in the Elimation Chamber match, after about 4 minutes I believe. Then because he'd put in such an awful performance he had to beat up a small wrestler from behind to get into the other Elimination Chamber match. He was the last man in that match, and he struggled to put away Rey Mysterio. A man who started the match some 20 plus minutes earlier. He won the belt, but only just. He then lost at WrestleMania. Two PPVs in a row, three matches, two losses.

And how can you say Edge isn't as technical? He might not be of Angle/Hart like abilities to a Tee, but he wrestled toe-to-toe with Angle and won. That says a lot about his technical abilities.

He didn't really use many moves for what you would consider to be a technical wrestler though.

Edge can hit a spear big enough to level the Big Show. I doubt Austin's beer belly is going to be as hard as Show's gut, and yet Show was leveled for a 3-count. So naturally, Austin would be as well.

It's easy to knock over Big Show. I've never understood why announcers claim it isn't. He's tall, hit him in the right place and he'll go down. He's got further to fall so it stands to reason it'll hurt him more.

Who doesn't pin Big Show anyway?

 

[TheOneBigWill]

This is SOOOO unfair. Austin was very badly injured while in the middle of his WWE prime. If he never got dropped on his head by Owen Hart, who KNOWS how many more years and title reigns he could've produced. We need to remember what he did and the impact he made during his HEALTHY time in the WWE. (And please don't argue that Edge also had neck surgery and is still wrestling, therefore he's tougher. That's a load of crap.)

I'm not going to use Edge's neck injury as anything, but it's unfair to try and lay claim on Austin's being the result on why he stopped if I can't say Edge is tougher, now isn't it? A neck injury/broken neck, is a broken neck/neck injury, is it not?

I mean, are you implying that Owen Hart had more power in his piledriver than whoever was responsible for Edge's neck breaking? Regardless, I don't care of either man's neck injury. I won't use that for a plus or negative.

Austin is a hero... a legend... a pop-culture icon... and is praised by morons like us that think we know everything about wrestling as well as past, present, and future wrestlers along with owners and operators of the biggest and best wrestling organizations in the world. I'm not saying that Edge isn't any of these things. Someday, he might be. But as of right now, Edge is still creating his legacy. Austin already did that (and then some) in a shorter time span. Hell, the guy is as hot now as he was back then and he officially hasn't been in a match since 2003. If you say anything different, you're only kidding yourself.

Truth is though, once again I've yet to see someone reply to my statement of how it took Austin some odd TWELVE YEARS to make something of himself, in traveling through 3 different (major) Companies. Whereas, It only took Edge roughly EIGHT YEARS in 1 (major) Company. So how you can say Austin made an impact in shorter time, is beyond me.

It's as if you forgot all the time he's been in the actual Professional Wrestling industry, and you want to just assume he's only ever been "Stone Cold" Steve Austin.

As for him being just as hot now, as he was before. I'd definitely argue that. If that were the case, the ratings for when he's promoted on being on the following week's show would go up just as high. (I bet Sly has a pie-chart indicating what he likely doesn't want us to know, which is the ratings likely didn't jump as high as they once did - when others such as; The Rock, D-X and the Corp/Ministry were all involved as well.)

I'd really like to see actual records of this as proof. To me, this is mere speculation. Come on Will, you're better than that! LOL

While naturally that was an opinionated statement by me, I suppose you can look at overall Pay per view results.

Before he was Stone Cold, he was dropping matches to the likes of Savio Vega, and not even appearing on the card(s) at all. As for Edge, I did a Pay per view run-down in the Lesnar thread, that showed as he progressed through the years.. his win/loss record actually got better over time.

Let's keep in mind, I said Austin lost more than he won leading UP to his StoneCold run. He lost back-to-back matches to Savio Vega, and when he wasn't losing to Vega, he wasn't being used on the card at all.

Before his entry into the W.W.F, he was losing left and right in E.C.W, to guys like Mickey Whipwreck, Sandman and others. So yes, I'd say arguably that he lost a lot before he came into the 3 yr period that meant the most.

Edge, on the opposite hand, as I've pointed out - has won progressively more each year. And with each year, he's stepped up another rung on the so-called "ladder" that would be the roster. Edge, in 8 (+) year's has yet to have a slump year.

Amounts of title reigns mean absolutely nothing these days. They're giving world titles away like candy on Halloween. It's the meaning behind their most important wins/reigns that make the difference here. Yes, they both won KOTR. Yes, they both won the IC title on multiple occasions as well as the world title. But in big match situations (namely Wrestlemania), more impact was made when Austin WON his titles and when Edge LOST his. Other PPV's during the year don't produce a new "era" in wrestling (a.k.a. "The Austin Era has begun!!")

So wait, you're looking at the impact in which the title matches happened.. as opposed to winning or losing titles?

You just said title reigns mean absolutely nothing. So if they mean nothing, now, you can't go back on your word and say they meant everything before. That's biased and opinionated. No where would that be considered a fact. It's all in how you see it, and I see it (no offense) as a load of crap because you want to make Austin's reigns seem better, despite not having nearly as many.

As for the "era's", Edge has had TWO. When he won the King of the Ring, a self-proclaimed "Era of Awesomeness" began. (Just like Austin's 3:16) Albeit, I won't argue the bible verse got a sizeable amount more love.

And the second "Era" was the Rated R Era, that from 2006 currently based on the fact he's still being called that, seems pretty good to me.

And we really need to stop justifying Edge's title reigns as being ALL reigns of importance. We ALL know that two of the reigns were stolen via MITB briefcases. But it still makes no difference. His title wins weren't ground breaking. Hell, he never even won a title at Wrestlemania!! But he did LOSE it...

Ignoring each man's title reigns, as you wanted - and looking more at the impact the wins/losses had.. I'd say Edge's losses elevated just as many people, as Austin's win's did.

Someone said, Austin won more than lost during the 97-98 time frame - because when he lost, it gave that person who beat him a great elevation. Arguably, the exact same could be said for those who finally came to beat Edge.. for a title.

Jeff Hardy never grabbed the brass ring, until he beat Edge. The Undertaker's streak was in jeopardy to a degree, when he faced Edge. (and Edge retired him, mind you - it counts) Punk's BEST part regarding his first reign, was an unconscious Edge putting him over.

So yes, you're absolutely right.. Edge has helped to elevate just as many, if not more soon-to-be top stars in the Company. And on that note, Austin refused to put over the likes of Brock Lesnar and Jeff Jarrett. Why?

It's not his weakness... it's just not his forte. Just because he lost to people with FAR MORE technical skill doesn't mean that he has no technical skill, therefor making him 'weak.' That's such a shit argument.

Shit or not, it's got validation to it. More technical savvy Wrestlers have bested Austin, than any other type.

Isn't the spear a move that has been kicked out of more than the Stunner?? Maybe Edge would his the spear the way you explain it, but that doesn't mean that Austin won't kick out.

And who's to say Edge wouldn't kick out of a Stunner? I mean, Angle kicked out of like what, 3-4 at Summerslam. And Edge has kicked out of bigger moves, such as a Tombstone, Superkick and Pedigree. It's completely tied-up to assume each man would no-sell their opponent's finisher.

This only proves that certain wrestlers can bullshit their way to a win in ANY match. Austin can cheat just as much as Edge. Austin can use just as much otuside interference as Edge. They've both used lackies to do their dirty work in the past... they've both manipulated GM's and people in power in the WWE to get their way and either win or keep championships... This is just another argument thrown out there to make it look like it favors Edge when it actually favors BOTH opponents.

But it's not in favor of both men, Edge's made more of a living out of doing this than Austin has. Yes, Austin's done it - but Edge has mastered it, and brought it to a whole new level that Austin never reached. (If he would've, then he would've won more gold from W.C.W & E.C.W)

Ok, so hopefully I did ok with this reply. I hope I don't get crucified Hahahaha...

No no, it was a very good post. Thank you.

Are we ignoring his first title reign when Triple H & John Cena were to top guys on Raw? Shouldn't a champion always be the top guy anyway?

Uhm, Triple H was feuding with the Big Show - on the undercard. And Cena was feuding with Edge, in the Main Event. Yes, the Champion should be on top - and Edge was.

Perhaps you're thinking of Triple H/Cena, when Cena regained the title.

I think the company, WWE, would disagree. Randy Orton is the top heel.

Currently, yes, because it seems Edge is turning tweener. But roughly less than a year ago.. fuck no. Edge has been the top heel since 2007, if not 2006.

But Edge still loses all the time, correct?

No. Trying to say he loses ALL the time is implying he never wins, hardly ever. And that's incorrect. He won at the Rumble, lost and won at No Way Out, was irrelevant at Mania (didn't win, or get pinned) won at Backlash, won at Judgment Day, lost at Extreme Rules.

So off this year's Pay per view list.. no, he actually wins more than loses. He's lost twice, three times if you count the time he wasn't actually beaten.

C.M. Punk & Jeff Hardy are on the same level or higher than The Rock or Triple H?

How nice of you to grab the two lowest names, and try matching them with the two highest. And not hardly, Jake.

First, Triple H wasn't even relevant during Austin's so-called "Prime". When Triple H did become relevant, he started dominating and beating Austin. The Rock was the only guy who ever seemed to always lose to Austin.

Cena and Triple H, match up with that of The Rock and the Undertaker. Cena/Rock, Triple H/Taker. And to say Rock was more popular is pure shit. (more on that later - as I think you bring it up later, too)

Well of course, Steve Austin has never won the Heavyweight Championship. It was bought into WWE when he was taking a holiday and he only had two or three matches before he retired. He never challenged for that belt.

"Taking Holiday".. would this be during the time he refused to job to Brock Lesnar, and quit? Okay Jake, whatever you say, bud.

In that case Edge was eliminated from an Elimination Chamber match after a couple of minutes to lose a title. Which highlights how prone he is to just rushing in and being careless.

And yet still left that night with a Championship around his waist, due to opportunistic moments and actual pure Wrestling ability. (He did wrestle the whole Chamber match, against the likes of Jericho, Mysterio, Cena & Kane ya know)

I fail to see how an Edge/Triple H match is better in any way than an Austin/Triple H match. Hardly anybody remembers Edge vs. Triple H at last years Bash, and it wasn't even a year ago. People still want to see Three Stages Of Hell matches because of Triple H & Austin 8 years ago.

I never said it was, but I'd be hard pressed to say Taker/Edge can rival it. People still talk about Taker/Edge having the best HIAC to date.

I'll only do comparistons with wrestlers that both of them didn't face. So goodbye to undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Mick Foley, Big Show, Kane, Jeff Hardy, Matt Hardy & Jericho.

Why? Bring back Shawn Michaels and Triple H, there bud. Austin fought Michaels a grand total of once. And it was to put Austin over, as Michaels had a broken back and left for 4 years.

Trips on the other hand was NEVER a main stream part of Austin's title reign, until the very end when Triple H ascended and never looked back, leaving Austin broken and soon to be retired.

Same could be said with Jeff Hardy. Austin faced the Hardys as the Tag Team, not as the single's Wrestlers. And (Justin) don't try and give me that shit that Jeff Hardy defeated Triple H, because if you watch the match - he clearly doesn't do it cleanly.

The Rock > John Cena

Vince McMahon > Randy Orton

That's about it. Vince is a better heel than Orton & The Rock is a bigger star than John Cena.

I'll give you the McMahon > Orton bit, because Orton is a shit heel. But Cena is just as popular now, as the Rock was then. (this was before Rock turned Hollywood, mind you)

Cena's won more at Mania than Rock ever did. Cena's had one of the longer title reigns in the history of the Company. And Cena's produced just as much outside of the ring crap as the Rock, including movies.

I fail to see how Rey Mysterio is a better level of competition now in comparison to X-Pac in 1999.

You mean, besides the overall amount of how much more talented Mysterio is? Or how much more the fans actually respect Mysterio and give a shit to watch him?

Surely as somebody who doesn't go for the whole ''prime'' thing you must allow overall popularity to come into play.

Not a chance. Especially since Edge has played a heel more than not. And as every Austin supporter is trying to shove off, Austin was the anti-hero. Of course he'd be more popular. But it doesn't mean Edge isn't just as entertaining or interesting.

 

[D-Man]

I'm not going to use Edge's neck injury as anything, but it's unfair to try and lay claim on Austin's being the result on why he stopped if I can't say Edge is tougher, now isn't it? A neck injury/broken neck, is a broken neck/neck injury, is it not?

Yeah, but you and I BOTH know that Austin would've kept wrestling if the doctors didn't stop him from doing so. That doesn't make anyone tougher than the other. That's like saying HBK is better than Bret Hart because he won at SS 97' even though it was Vince's doing.

I mean, are you implying that Owen Hart had more power in his piledriver than whoever was responsible for Edge's neck breaking? Regardless, I don't care of either man's neck injury. I won't use that for a plus or negative.

If we actually argued about that it would be some funny, epic shit

Truth is though, once again I've yet to see someone reply to my statement of how it took Austin some odd TWELVE YEARS to make something of himself, in traveling through 3 different (major) Companies. Whereas, It only took Edge roughly EIGHT YEARS in 1 (major) Company. So how you can say Austin made an impact in shorter time, is beyond me.

Ok how about this... if you want to look at how long it REALLY took them to win their first world championships, maybe we should dig back to when they actually STARTED in pro wrestling, instead of when they started in the WWE:

FACT:
According to Wikipedia, Austin began his wrestling career in 1989 while Edge began his in the "early 1990's" (let's say 1991, for shit's sake).

FACT:
Austin won his first world title in 1998 at WM14. This is 9 years after he began pro-wrestling.

Edge won his first world title at New Years Revolution in 2006. This is close to 15 years after he began pro-wrestling.

It's as if you forgot all the time he's been in the actual Professional Wrestling industry, and you want to just assume he's only ever been "Stone Cold" Steve Austin.

Well, I'm glad I just cleared this up then.

As for him being just as hot now, as he was before. I'd definitely argue that. If that were the case, the ratings for when he's promoted on being on the following week's show would go up just as high. (I bet Sly has a pie-chart indicating what he likely doesn't want us to know, which is the ratings likely didn't jump as high as they once did - when others such as; The Rock, D-X and the Corp/Ministry were all involved as well.)

Personally, I would judge popularity of a heel vs. a face by the crowd's pop vs. heel heat. When Austin comes out, an arena erupts with deafeneing cheers. When Edge comes out, he is booed almost out of the f'in state. I see them as being dead even... but the edge (no pun intended) goes to Austin, since the guy hasn't even been an active wrestler for years now.

While naturally that was an opinionated statement by me, I suppose you can look at overall Pay per view results.

Before he was Stone Cold, he was dropping matches to the likes of Savio Vega, and not even appearing on the card(s) at all. As for Edge, I did a Pay per view run-down in the Lesnar thread, that showed as he progressed through the years.. his win/loss record actually got better over time.

Let's keep in mind, I said Austin lost more than he won leading UP to his StoneCold run. He lost back-to-back matches to Savio Vega, and when he wasn't losing to Vega, he wasn't being used on the card at all.

Before his entry into the W.W.F, he was losing left and right in E.C.W, to guys like Mickey Whipwreck, Sandman and others. So yes, I'd say arguably that he lost a lot before he came into the 3 yr period that meant the most.

Edge, on the opposite hand, as I've pointed out - has won progressively more each year. And with each year, he's stepped up another rung on the so-called "ladder" that would be the roster. Edge, in 8 (+) year's has yet to have a slump year.

This tournament isn't about progression. It's about looking at the superstar at their highest/strongest points in every aspect of the business (combined)and pitting them against each other. That is the ONLY fair way to determine a winner. Hands down, Austin at his hottest time DESTROYS Edge at his hottest time, which is probably right now. (My term "Hottest" refers to most healthy, strong, top of their game. Please don't nit-pick at my words here. I think you understand what I'm saying.)

So wait, you're looking at the impact in which the title matches happened.. as opposed to winning or losing titles?

Um... yeah.

You just said title reigns mean absolutely nothing.

No, I said the QUANTITY of title reigns means nothing.

So if they mean nothing, now, you can't go back on your word and say they meant everything before. That's biased and opinionated. No where would that be considered a fact. It's all in how you see it, and I see it (no offense) as a load of crap because you want to make Austin's reigns seem better, despite not having nearly as many.

I doubt that I'm the ONLY person that thinks that a quantity of title reigns in the year 2009 means dick compared to what it meant 10 years ago. Oh, that's right... 10 years ago Austin was already winning world titles while Edge was blowing Gangrel.

As for the "era's", Edge has had TWO. When he won the King of the Ring, a self-proclaimed "Era of Awesomeness" began. (Just like Austin's 3:16) Albeit, I won't argue the bible verse got a sizeable amount more love.

And the second "Era" was the Rated R Era, that from 2006 currently based on the fact he's still being called that, seems pretty good to me.

OH PUUUUULEASE!!! Self-proclaimed Era's don't count!!! If that's the case then look out world, the ERA OF THE D-MAN HAS BEGUN!!! I guess I'm a player now, huh?? Pfffft...

Ignoring each man's title reigns, as you wanted - and looking more at the impact the wins/losses had.. I'd say Edge's losses elevated just as many people, as Austin's win's did.

Someone said, Austin won more than lost during the 97-98 time frame - because when he lost, it gave that person who beat him a great elevation. Arguably, the exact same could be said for those who finally came to beat Edge.. for a title.

Jeff Hardy never grabbed the brass ring, until he beat Edge. The Undertaker's streak was in jeopardy to a degree, when he faced Edge. (and Edge retired him, mind you - it counts) Punk's BEST part regarding his first reign, was an unconscious Edge putting him over.

So yes, you're absolutely right.. Edge has helped to elevate just as many, if not more soon-to-be top stars in the Company. And on that note, Austin refused to put over the likes of Brock Lesnar and Jeff Jarrett. Why?

Ok... THIS one I give you. You couldn't be more correct about Edge putting talent over. But, what difference does that make in this match? So are you saying that if he loses to Austin in this tournament that he's better because he's putting Austin over???

Shit or not, it's got validation to it. More technical savvy Wrestlers have bested Austin, than any other type.

You're right... it's still shit.

And who's to say Edge wouldn't kick out of a Stunner? I mean, Angle kicked out of like what, 3-4 at Summerslam. And Edge has kicked out of bigger moves, such as a Tombstone, Superkick and Pedigree. It's completely tied-up to assume each man would no-sell their opponent's finisher.

Another good point. This one I can't really argue. I guess their toughness is in the eye of the beholder.

But it's not in favor of both men, Edge's made more of a living out of doing this than Austin has. Yes, Austin's done it - but Edge has mastered it, and brought it to a whole new level that Austin never reached. (If he would've, then he would've won more gold from W.C.W & E.C.W)

The only way this has any bearing on the tournament is if Edge cheats or uses outside interference to win this matchup. If cheating determined winners in this tournament, then even Funaki could've beaten Edge.

Whenever Edge has stood toe-to-toe with an opponent of Austin's caliber without cheating, he's has a losing record.

No no, it was a very good post. Thank you.

YOU'RE WELCOME And your posts are good, too. Just not as good as mine

Prove me wrong! LOL

 

[X]

Uhm, yeah - no. John Cena.

Cena is to the business, today, what Hogan was to it in the 80's-early 90's, and Austin was to it in the late 90's.

...WHAT?!?!?!?!?!

Tell me you did not just say that. You really just compared John Cena's popularity/standing in the business to Hulk fucking Hogan? Are you joking me? That is so absurd I cannot even respond to it.

Justify yourself. Immediately.

And Cena is better than Austin. By the understanding that Cena's been a more popular (active) figure in the sport, from at least 2004-2009. (5 yrs) Austin's been a popular (active) figure in the sport, from 1997-1999, 2001 (3 yrs)

You have got to be joking me. Did you even look at the TV ratings that Sly posted? When was the last time Cena was drawing an 8.0 + rating?

I mean, you've given some very good arguments for Edge thus far Will, but this is not one of them. You seriously don't believe John Cena is as big of a star as Stone Cold Steve Austin? Do I really need to explain to you how absurd that is?

Those ratings were partly because of Steve Austin, without question I will say that. But to come fully out, like you have, and claim because he was their Champion - that hes mainly, fully and the biggest reason for them - is a piss poor argument, and entirely opinionated.

Oh come on man, you claim you were watching wrestling then, well then you should know damn well that Austin was unquestionably the number one draw in the entire wrestling industry. Being the biggest star in not only your company but your entire industry equals big ratings. Guys like DX, Rocky, and the Ministry played a nice role as well, but Austin was always the number one reason people tuned in. Without Austin's role in the resurgence of RAW ratings, it's very likely that WCW would have won the Monday Night Wars. Austin was the catalyst, you cannot debate this. I mean, you can try, but you'll be incredibly wrong.

You can't prove all those millions who tuned in - did it mainly for Austin, so much as McMahon, The Rock, D-X, the Undertaker, or any number of other reasons.

Are you joking? So according to you there is no correlation between being the number one star in the wrestling business and television ratings skyrocketing for that star's promotion? Really now?

Austin was a part of the Attitude Era, not the whole fucking thing. When will you learn this?

He was by far the biggest part. You know damn well Austin was the number one star, and to be the number one star during one of the most profitable and important eras in the history of wrestling would have to make you pretty damn good now wouldn't it? Alot better then Edge. But sure, debate me that Edge is a bigger star.

So, you're saying winning a World Heavyweight Championship isn't a major accomplishment? So I guess Ric Flair, Triple H, Edge, Steve Austin, The Rock, Bret Hart and roughly every other Heavyweight Champion is just nothing special.

You really believe that all World Title's are created equally? So the ECW Title is just as important and prestigious as the WWE Title then?

Ohh, but this is where you give the lame argument of "But Will, it was when there was only ONE title, not THREE". Really Sly, that tireless argument? You do realize just because there's three now, it's not like ALL THREE are defended on the same brand all the time, right?

Will, it's simple probability. You have a greater chance of winning a title when there are three of them then when there is only one. Are you going to debate math in Edge's honor now dude?

How did Austin make it standard, when you just said the n.W.o (who was running WITH Austin) made it, to begin with? So, the n.W.o created it, Austin stole it, and just refused to stop stealing it.. yet the n.W.o continued running with it and working it just the same.

There's a big different between what the NWO was doing and what Austin did Will, and you should see it pretty clearly. The NWO, despite their popularity, were still always solidly heels. They were booked as heels in storylines and squared off against faces in your typical face vs. heel formula.

Austin on the other hand as a face (and when you're getting the pops Austin was in 99 and being booked in feuds against nothing but heels, you're definately a face) did things that no one had done before in wrestling. Face's weren't supposed to beat up Jim Ross and destroy their own promotion's titles. Austin did, and it only made him more popular.

See the difference?

HE, didn't double shit. HE, didn't make Vince a billionaire, but I will agree HE is one of SEVERAL Wrestlers whose name is known in the mainstream.. because he's made a movie, and been thrust into everyone's eye-sight.

A) Without Austin, there's a very good chance that the WCW would have won the Monday Night Wars and WWE would be the one's out of business. Right before Austin's rise to power was among the absolute lowest (if I'm not mistaken the lowest) the WWF had ever been. They were hemorrhaging money.

B) You think Austin is known as a celebrity because of the Condemned? Are you serious? Austin was already a national celebrity ten years before that movie was ever made.

Ah, but you said "big match" - you never indicated what type. And the T.L.C match(es) were arguably Main Events in their own right for Mania 2000, and Mania X-7.

"Arguably"? By who, you? You either are the main event or you aren't.

You're going to sit here and tell me that people were more looking forward to the Tag Team title match then the first Rock-Austin match in 2 years? Are you huffing gasoline?

Nice way to sugar-coat it. Booker T, the "upper card jobber" that just happened to be a 5-time W.C.W Heavyweight Champion.. right, Sly, yep.. jobber.

We're talking about the Booker T that won his titles during the worst era in WCW's history? The man who was champion when they folded? The same World Title that shortly beforehand had been won by the likes of David Arquette and Vince Russo? For a promotion that couldn't fill even half of an arena?

The Royal Rumble awards the winner w/ a "victory" but doesn't count losses on everyone's record.

It doesn't? If you're in a match, and someone else wins that match, by definition you have lost that match. Not up to debate.

Once again, to WIN a Heavyweight Championship.. NINE TIMES.. is more than anyone; except Ric Flair or Triple H, can say. That includes Austin.

I didn't realize this was a "Who's Won the Most World Titles?" contest. Again, you think every world title is created equally? Right.

Man, I'm sorry if I come off dickish here Will, but you've presented some pretty awful arguments here. I still respect your opinion, but it's extremely flawed.

 

[Slyfox696]

...WHAT?!?!?!?!?!

Tell me you did not just say that. You really just compared John Cena's popularity/standing in the business to Hulk fucking Hogan? Are you joking me? That is so absurd I cannot even respond to it.

Justify yourself. Immediately.



You have got to be joking me. Did you even look at the TV ratings that Sly posted? When was the last time Cena was drawing an 8.0 + rating?

I mean, you've given some very good arguments for Edge thus far Will, but this is not one of them. You seriously don't believe John Cena is as big of a star as Stone Cold Steve Austin? Do I really need to explain to you how absurd that is?



Oh come on man, you claim you were watching wrestling then, well then you should know damn well that Austin was unquestionably the number one draw in the entire wrestling industry. Being the biggest star in not only your company but your entire industry equals big ratings. Guys like DX, Rocky, and the Ministry played a nice role as well, but Austin was always the number one reason people tuned in. Without Austin's role in the resurgence of RAW ratings, it's very likely that WCW would have won the Monday Night Wars. Austin was the catalyst, you cannot debate this. I mean, you can try, but you'll be incredibly wrong.



Are you joking? So according to you there is no correlation between being the number one star in the wrestling business and television ratings skyrocketing for that star's promotion? Really now?



He was by far the biggest part. You know damn well Austin was the number one star, and to be the number one star during one of the most profitable and important eras in the history of wrestling would have to make you pretty damn good now wouldn't it? Alot better then Edge. But sure, debate me that Edge is a bigger star.



You really believe that all World Title's are created equally? So the ECW Title is just as important and prestigious as the WWE Title then?



Will, it's simple probability. You have a greater chance of winning a title when there are three of them then when there is only one. Are you going to debate math in Edge's honor now dude?



There's a big different between what the NWO was doing and what Austin did Will, and you should see it pretty clearly. The NWO, despite their popularity, were still always solidly heels. They were booked as heels in storylines and squared off against faces in your typical face vs. heel formula.

Austin on the other hand as a face (and when you're getting the pops Austin was in 99 and being booked in feuds against nothing but heels, you're definately a face) did things that no one had done before in wrestling. Face's weren't supposed to beat up Jim Ross and destroy their own promotion's titles. Austin did, and it only made him more popular.

See the difference?



A) Without Austin, there's a very good chance that the WCW would have won the Monday Night Wars and WWE would be the one's out of business. Right before Austin's rise to power was among the absolute lowest (if I'm not mistaken the lowest) the WWF had ever been. They were hemorrhaging money.

B) You think Austin is known as a celebrity because of the Condemned? Are you serious? Austin was already a national celebrity ten years before that movie was ever made.



"Arguably"? By who, you? You either are the main event or you aren't.

You're going to sit here and tell me that people were more looking forward to the Tag Team title match then the first Rock-Austin match in 2 years? Are you huffing gasoline?



We're talking about the Booker T that won his titles during the worst era in WCW's history? The man who was champion when they folded? The same World Title that shortly beforehand had been won by the likes of David Arquette and Vince Russo? For a promotion that couldn't fill even half of an arena?



It doesn't? If you're in a match, and someone else wins that match, by definition you have lost that match. Not up to debate.



I didn't realize this was a "Who's Won the Most World Titles?" contest. Again, you think every world title is created equally? Right.

Man, I'm sorry if I come off dickish here Will, but you've presented some pretty awful arguments here. I still respect your opinion, but it's extremely flawed.

Wow...I'm glad I waited before responding, as you pretty much said what I was going to. Thanks.

Just a couple things I want to add:

1) When Edge beat Cena in Boston, Cena still didn't have overwhelming crowd support like Austin will in Texas.

2) If my lips were plastered to anyone's behind, it was Sting, Benoit and Bret Hart, not Austin. Doesn't change the fact that Austin was THE man in the Attitude Era.

3)

Sly, I am most certainly NOT going to look at another one of your ridiculously stupid pie-charts.

Yes, if I were you and the facts proved my completely wrong, I would want to ignore them as well. Good job.

4)

Revolutionizing indicates he, solely, changed the entire landscape. At what point did he do something that no one else had done before?

How about be the first bad guy face, that beat up his boss and did it to the delight of current fans while simultaneously doubling the wrestling audience.

Who else did that?

5)

So, you're saying winning a World Heavyweight Championship isn't a major accomplishment?

No, I'm saying that winning 9 World Titles in a time where there is three World titles to go around, and then hold them for an average of 48 days isn't a major accomplishment.

Hell, CM Punk is already a 3 time WWE World Champion. That means he is as good as Mick Foley was, and better than Bob Backlund. Or...that could just be a completely asinine way to look at things. So, unless you think CM Punk is better than Bob Backlund, then your 48 day average title reigns mean shit.

6)

your use of ratings too. Especially to try and play off Austin doing that - solo. Really Sly? Really??

Uhh, yeah! Seriously Will, you should have watched wrestling back then. Maybe you'd understand what I'm talking about.

7)

Ah, but you said "big match" - you never indicated what type. And the T.L.C match(es) were arguably Main Events in their own right for Mania 2000, and Mania X-7.

Since when is an undercard tag team match bigger than a Wrestlemania main-event match for a World Title?

What I originally said is that he's 0-3 in his last three, two of which were for the World title. They don't get any bigger than World title matches at Wrestlemania.

8)

Nice way to sugar-coat it. Booker T, the "upper card jobber" that just happened to be a 5-time W.C.W Heavyweight Champion.. right, Sly, yep.. jobber.

5 titles in 1 year...yeah, THAT'S impressive

His first World title win was July 2000...his fifth was July 2001. Like I said...upper card jobber.

9)

However, if you didn't get pinned, submit, counted out, or DQ'd.. it's not a loss.

How the fuck do you figure this? If you don't win, you lose. A draw in wrestling is where there is no winner. Since there was a winner, everyone else was losers. It's that simple.

10)

Austin lost his last Mania match as well, and that was a Singles match. Not to mention, (not counting Bischoff) his last real match.

Great point Will...at least it would be if there was one wrestling fan on this Earth who actually considers Austin's last match to be his prime.

Unfortunately for you, EVERYONE knows Austin's prime was from '97-99. Poor form Will. Fail.

For the last time.. Go find them.

No. Because they're shit. Make them nice and neat, and I'll say why their shit.

It took Edge roughly EIGHT YEARS to make the following 3 and counting of his career something impressive. And Edge isn't retired, and is likely only going to collect MORE Main Event Mania spots, MORE Heavyweight Championships, and MORE overall accolade's.. before ending up in the Hall of Fame, just like Stone Cold.

That's great Will. When he accomplishes HALF of what Austin did in Wrestling, in terms of taking the WWE to mainstream exposure, moving the ratings needle to the 8s, make the WWE mainstream, and be the biggest draw in the company, much less the entire world, then feel free to use that as an argument.

But until then, Edge can keep beating 40 year old men, sneaking up on worn out and injured wrestlers, and win one of the three World titles, and it won't mean a damn.

 

[ace frehley]

Long before I ever got into wrestling, I had images of Stone Cold in mind when thinking of what true wrestling should be. This was only reinforced again and again as I grew to love the sport. Look at everything he has done, all he has accomplished and then tell me how Edge even compares??

He doesn't.

If you have any doubts, just keep watching and his name will fall back into obscurity...

 

[TwistofRKO]

Austin has 6 WWE title reigns that totaled 530 days as the top dog whereas Edge has 9 title reigns for about 434 days with split competition.

Great job Will, I disagree with you, but you're doing your job, Edge is winning.

 

[tehblogger]

I am an enormous Edge fan, but I voted for Austin in this one. Not least because I don't see what Edge has to keep Austin down for long enough. If this were a gimmick match, I'd certainly vote for Edge, the king of the ladder match, the master of hardcore - but it isn't. Plus, my ultimately loyalty is for Bret Hart, and I really don't view Austin as a serious threat to Hart, whereas Edge vs Hart could get dicey.

 

[Lee]

After reading all the arguments on why I should vote for one person over, both sides make very valid points and so it comes down to one thing...and one thing only.

WHAT? annoys the hell out of me, so it's not a vote for Edge, it's a vote against Austin.

 

[Coco]

Anyway, after Steve left, we began to see something very weird out of Vince McMahon… He required that his main event wrestlers, for the most part, had to put on… Dare I say it… Good matches? Yes, that was the case. After Steve left, The Rock and Triple H took over the reins to the future of the WWE. Not only were they able to put on excellent matches, but they were now ready to fill the void left by Steve, and become main eventers. They were finally ready to step out of the shadows, and become main eventers, themselves. And from there, Vince started to build other wrestlers similarly to how he built the Rock and Triple H. Namely, such as wrestlers like these….

Now you're going to have to clear something up for me. We can both agree that a lot of the ring work in 1998 and 1999 was crap across the board. But what confuses me is how you're getting ready to paint it as though once the WWE turned over a new leaf in 2000, that Austin didn't have any great matches like the guys you're talking about. How exactly did you reach that conclusion? Has Kurt Angle ever had a better match than the passionate fight he had with the twisted sell-out Steve Austin at SummerSlam 2001? Was Triple H vs. Steve Austin at No Way Out 2001 no, hands down, one of the best climaxes to a blood feud in the history of the WWE? Did Rock and Austin not have one of the biggest and best matches in the history of Wrestlemania in the heart of Texas? Did Austin not have a better villainous performance against Chris Benoit in 2001 on SmackDown than Edge has ever had in his entire career? Steve Austin had some of the best work in that late part of the Attitude Era that you love so much.

Yes, 1998/1999 had some bad work because of the general direction of the company. However, when given the chance to do his best against the best (like he did in 1996, 1997, and 2001), Austin's best nights dwarf those of Edge.

 

[Tenta]

Now you're going to have to clear something up for me. We can both agree that a lot of the ring work in 1998 and 1999 was crap across the board. But what confuses me is how you're getting ready to paint it as though once the WWE turned over a new leaf in 2000, that Austin didn't have any great matches like the guys you're talking about. How exactly did you reach that conclusion? Has Kurt Angle ever had a better match than the passionate fight he had with the twisted sell-out Steve Austin at SummerSlam 2001? Was Triple H vs. Steve Austin at No Way Out 2001 no, hands down, one of the best climaxes to a blood feud in the history of the WWE? Did Rock and Austin not have one of the biggest and best matches in the history of Wrestlemania in the heart of Texas? Did Austin not have a better villainous performance against Chris Benoit in 2001 on SmackDown than Edge has ever had in his entire career? Steve Austin had some of the best work in that late part of the Attitude Era that you love so much.

Yes, 1998/1999 had some bad work because of the general direction of the company. However, when given the chance to do his best against the best (like he did in 1996, 1997, and 2001), Austin's best nights dwarf those of Edge.

I only have thirteen minutes before I leave for work, so I'm not going to break this post down completely.

Coco, what you're asking for right now is to have your cake and eat it, too. You want that heel Austin that, yes, did have pretty good matches when he returned from neck surgery. But I suppose you also want the Austin that went The Attitude Era as it's savior, now don't you? It doesn't work both ways, Coco. You get one Austin or the other. If that were the case, I'd take different parts of Edge's career, and use those to my advantage. We're asked to pick wrestlers at their kayfabe height. So what's it going to be Coco?

Oh, and to answer your questions:

1. Yes, Kurt's iron man match with Brock Lesnar was better.

2. Even at that, it still clearly showed that Steve lost that feud.

3. Which he won with the help of Mr. McMahon.

4. I applaud you for actually responding to my posts. At least, the heart of my posts, instead of flat out ignoring them

 

[Coco]

I only have thirteen minutes before I leave for work, so I'm not going to break this post down completely.

Coco, what you're asking for right now is to have your cake and eat it, too. You want that heel Austin that, yes, did have pretty good matches when he returned from neck surgery. But I suppose you also want the Austin that went The Attitude Era as it's savior, now don't you? It doesn't work both ways, Coco. You get one Austin or the other. If that were the case, I'd take different parts of Edge's career, and use those to my advantage. We're asked to pick wrestlers at their kayfabe height. So what's it going to be Coco?

We're having two completely different conversations though. If we're talking kayfabe, he had one peak. If we're talking quality of ringwork, he had two peaks and two different times. But in the conversation of the quality of ringwork, which I think the part of your post I quoted was addressing (speaking of "excellent matches" and whatnot), I don't see how Austin's primes in that regard are touched by Edge. That was my point.