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?
Well, it kind of does for the most part. The fact that Austin is (by far) the bigger star of the two means that in all likelihood he would be booked to win.
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.
It may not matter in this match particularly but it shows that he wins in big match environments. Also come on, you think that if Brock had actually stuck around he wouldn't have eventually lost one?
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.
Since when is going on 2nd last "mid-card?", does that make HHH-Taker from this years Mania a mid card match? And maybe that fact that both Rock and Austin were past their prime in 2003 has something to do with it. It is hardly fair to compare.
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.
Fair enough, so your argument is that Brock will beat Steve by DQ or countout. I suppose I could actually believe you if you said that because that is about the only way he would win, as I am about to show you Austin only lost clean under extreme circumstances.
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.
So, he loses in FIVE MINUTES in a title match on one of the biggest shows of the year, beats jobbers, faces mid card talent (Cena, Holly) in title matches and goes on first (something Austin never did on PPV).
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.
I was saying Austin's consecutive time on top, sorry I should have specified that. Austin was also on top for the latter part of 2000 and most of 2001.
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.
Well if you include beating the Hardyz, (2003) Cena, RVD, Holly and Show on the same level as beating Dude Love, Taker, Rock etc then yeah he won more but the quality of opponents is hardly comparable. Also when Steve did lose, he predominantly lost either to screwjob finish or DQ, very rarely was it completely clean.
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.
Also just look at the names he lost to, is losing to the likes of Taker or Mankind comparable to losing to Big Show or Eddie Guerrero? I don't think so.
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.
Like I said if winning against Holly and The Hardyz and losing to Show and Angle is comparable to losing to Taker and HHH then thats great but you have to take the quality of opponents into consideration.
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.
Basically from what I have seen here everything Brock has done Austin did better, beat Rock? Yep, twice at Wrestlemania. Main Event WM? Yup, three times and he never lost.
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?
Beat Taker? Multiple times. Win the Rumble? Yup, an unprecedented three times.
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.
Main Event PPV's? Yup every PPV match Stone Cold was in was a main event, half of Brock's were in the middle of the card. Stone Cold is the bigger star, more over star and in most cases the person who can claim that often wins.
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.
So really with all this, the only way I could see Steve losing is with some miracle DQ or screw job finish, so if you want to argue your case for that then be my guest but otherwise, Steve wins with a Stunner in the middle of the ring.
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.
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.
