Austin Interview - Praises Punk, Buries Orton and Del Rio

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I think Steve Austin has earned the right to speak his mind on whatever topic he wants. He likes Punk, and hell...who doesn't? Punk is different, controversial, and hot. Just like Austin.

Randy Orton is incredibly over, but he does need work. He is very one dimensional. He does have "another step in the ladder to climb". Alberto del Rio is good technically and is working on his heel persona, but he does need work. I like him, but Austin doesn't have to... He didn't blast anyone, just pointed out weaknesses and offered constructive criticism to two main event level talents.

End of the day...he's fu**ing "Stone Cold" Steve Austin.

 

[TheGodDamnDustin]

I have to agree with Ebony. Just because someone reached the top doesn't mean they inherited complete omniscience.
Hogan reached heights Austin never had, and yet just by looking at what he's done with TNA should show you that her doesn't know a damn thing and his word shouldn't be law.

 

[BigPoppaPunk]

Its easy for Austin to bury Orton and Del Rio on the mic, because the only thing that Austin was ever really great at was his MIC work, in the ring Austin was complete and absolute shit.

Orton and Del Rio would wrestle circles around Austin, but on the mic Austin would own them both.

Yes Austin is a legend, YES Austin has done a lot for the WWE, and YES Austin is one of the most important wrestlers of all time, but it doesn't make up for his downfalls.

Sure you can argue that he had some great matches in the WWE, he was entertaining and he did a fuck ton for the business. Austin has MAD charisma, Austin is great on the mic, Austin brings a ton to the table in terms of storylines and intensity, but he wasn't the best in ring performer we've seen.

Austin is the WWE style, brawl, pull a few real moves, and hit your big finish and the match is over but when you compare him to Orton and Del Rio in ring, Austin isn't shit.

I have to completely disagree with you here. Firstly, Austin didn't bury any of the guys he mentioned. He simply gave them points to work on. And for a guy who spent 20 years in the business and was arguably the most popular wrestler ever, his opinion carries alot of weight. Rightfully so, since he knows what works for a wrestler and what doesn't. At least he is objectively critisizing the guys as well as complementing their positives. Anyone who sees that as "burying" needs to examine their definition of the word. Ppl online tend to overuse that word, even when the guy supposedly doing the "burying" is attempting to help the guys he's mentioning.

As far as your argument that Austin was shit in the ring, again I disagree. His style was perfect for his character. It makes sense from a character standpoint for a hell raising badass to brawl. However, not all his matches were all out brawls. His matches with Bret Hart and Chris Benoit were technical as well as having his usual brawling. IMO, Austin knew what worked for him in the ring and used his moves wisely. Were all his matches 5 star classics? No, but not every wrestler needs to be exactly the same. That would be boring and not very interesting at all.

Compare Austin's in ring work to any top superstar as hot as he was, and his work was just as good(or better if were talking guys like Hogan or Warrior). Sure, he had to somewhat limit himself after his neck injury, but for the most part, he was the same in ring worker throughout his career. And IMO his in ring work was solid. His matches with ppl like Rock, HHH, Bret Hart, Chris Benoit and Jericho were all very good in ring work.

 

[TheGodDamnDustin]

Compare Austin's in ring work to any top superstar as hot as he was, and his work was just as good(or better if were talking guys like Hogan or Warrior). Sure, he had to somewhat limit himself after his neck injury, but for the most part, he was the same in ring worker throughout his career. And IMO his in ring work was solid. His matches with ppl like Rock, HHH, Bret Hart, Chris Benoit and Jericho were all very good in ring work.

That's like saying Cena's great in the ring because of his matches with Michaels. Those guys you listed were all great in-ring performers, and they could, for the most part, have great matches with anyone.

 

[BigPoppaPunk]

That's like saying Cena's great in the ring because of his matches with Michaels. Those guys you listed were all great in-ring performers, and they could, for the most part, have great matches with anyone.

IMO it's wrestling blasphemy to even compare Cena in the ring to Austin. Though Austin wasn't the most technical of wrestlers, he did have the ability to adapt to his opponent's style. Yes, the guys I listed were great in ring performers, but it takes two individuals to pull off a great match. Had Austin not been on their level in the ring, his flaws would've been exposed big time. However, that was not the case. Austin was able to hold his own so to speak against whoever his opponent was.

 

[The Champ]

Its easy for Austin to bury Orton and Del Rio on the mic, because the only thing that Austin was ever really great at was his MIC work, in the ring Austin was complete and absolute shit.

Orton and Del Rio would wrestle circles around Austin, but on the mic Austin would own them both.

Yes Austin is a legend, YES Austin has done a lot for the WWE, and YES Austin is one of the most important wrestlers of all time, but it doesn't make up for his downfalls.

Sure you can argue that he had some great matches in the WWE, he was entertaining and he did a fuck ton for the business. Austin has MAD charisma, Austin is great on the mic, Austin brings a ton to the table in terms of storylines and intensity, but he wasn't the best in ring performer we've seen.

Austin is the WWE style, brawl, pull a few real moves, and hit your big finish and the match is over but when you compare him to Orton and Del Rio in ring, Austin isn't shit.

How does "being the WWE style" mean that Austin wasn't a good worker? Everyone in the WWE works the fucking WWE style, including Orton and Del Rio. You basically just said "Austin had great matches and worked the WWE style but he wasn't good in the ring." What? Are you saying that everyone who's ever made a babyface comeback in a match and won isn't good in the ring? Clarify, I'm not understanding your point here. Austin was one of the best at selling, storytelling, in-ring charisma which is certainly important, and he was able to pull off a wider range of offense before his injury.

 

[TheGodDamnDustin]

IMO it's wrestling blasphemy to even compare Cena in the ring to Austin. Though Austin wasn't the most technical of wrestlers, he did have the ability to adapt to his opponent's style. Yes, the guys I listed were great in ring performers, but it takes two individuals to pull off a great match. Had Austin not been on their level in the ring, his flaws would've been exposed big time. However, that was not the case. Austin was able to hold his own so to speak against whoever his opponent was.

I compared them using your logic, so that blasphemy originated with you.
It does take two individuals to pull of a great match, but think about Cena/Michaels in their hour-long Raw match in April of 2007. That was a fantastic match, and I'm chalking it up to Michaels, just like I'm chalking most of Austin's great matches with the people you named to, well, the people you named.

 

[The Champ]

Saying it takes two to pull of a great match and then saying that Cena is a bad wrestler is as hypocritical as it gets. You can't just apply points to certain people and then not apply them to others, that is the very definition of being biased. I think Austin and Cena have both consistently displayed the ability to adapt to their opponents and to thrive in big match situations throughout the years. Each has a tremendous laundry list of great matches and to call either bad in the ring shows either a complete lack of wrestling knowledge, an extreme bias, or in Austin's case, bitterness because he dissed your favorite wrestler.

 

[TheGodDamnDustin]

"My man," you're a hypocrite for thinking A) You're unbiased, B) Assuming people possess a "complete lack of wrestling knowledge" for not thinking two brawlers are great in-ring technicians, and C) Making assumptions about me (e.g. "because he dissed your favorite wrestler.") Who's my favorite wrestler, oh Master of All Knowledge Pertaining to an Entity You've Never Been Part Of?

 

[The Champ]

No one here is unbiased. If they were, then they wouldn't have an opinion. So why don't you quit with that stupid shit and actually argue your own biased opinions against mine.

Thinking that you have a great "in-ring technician" (The fuck does that even mean? You do a lot of moves?) to be a great wrestler does indeed display a lack of wrestling knowledge. The whole point of being a wrestler is to get the fans into your matches. You can take a Tyson Kidd or a Drew McIntyre or whoever the fuck gets praised for their "classics" on Superstars, and the fans don't really give a shit. On the other hand, you take an Austin or a Cena who goes in there, gives it their all, makes their opponent look like money, and gets the people behind them for their big comeback, and those people are successful for a damn reason. If it takes two individuals to pull off a great match, which it absolutely does, then you can't just take a list of great matches from a guy's career and say that the person he wrestled was responsible every single time. That's just refusing to give credit where credit is due, and is more biased than anything I've said. But at least I can admit to being biased towards the guys I like, since, you know, that's how you're supposed to be as a wrestling fan.

 

[TheGodDamnDustin]

Dear The Champ,

You sound angry. Chill the fuck down, you're just as ignorant about things as I am. And remember, this is just a pro-wrestling Web site. If you're this high-strung about something you aren't part of, but simply watch, then I can only imagine how irritable you are during whatever real life you have.

That aside, how do you know what the purpose of wrestling is? Are you its divine creator that instilled that purpose into wrestling? Who the fuck appointed you on the authority of what wrestling is about and for? Please, teach me how you came into possession of this pure knowledge of wrestling that you keep insinuating you have over me and people think like me?

What do I/we think? I think I can't think of but three actual matches that I would call five-start Cena in the main event. And goddammit, he's been in a lot of them, and that's an awfully low percentage. Compare his percentage of five-star or "great" matches to, say, Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit, Bret Hart, Mr. Perfect, and you'll see just how shitty of a "wrestler" he is.
And who doesn't give it there all? You personally know the limits of every superstar and how hard they can push themselves? The guys who don't give it there all (Lesnar, WWE Goldberg, etc.) don't last very long, and I've seen more guys than just Cena who've been around for a while. Fix your logic.
Oh, and the "classics" you seem to poke fun at are works of art, not the same-old dime cent store comics that feature Superman surviving yet another battle and villain and living to fight yet another day. I'll watch Benoit vs. Angle from Backlash 2003 eleven times out of ten, if the only alternative was any Cena match.

 

[The Champ]

Haha, I'm not angry, dude. I'm the most chill person you'll ever meet in real life. I just don't sugarcoat anything when I'm having a debate. Anyway, back to said debate.

I'm not wrestling's "divine creator" but I have an opinion on what its purpose is. That opinion is based on watching wrestling for years and years, and observing the people who have been successful and the people who haven't, and why. It's not exactly rocket science as far as I'm concerned. I'm not trying to tell people not to enjoy what they like, but I'm thinking like I'm the masses here and it's easy to see what appeals to them now, and what has appealed to them throughout wrestling history.

What are your three five star Cena matches? By the way, just because a match isn't "five stars" doesn't mean it isn't great. I think Meltzer put that stupid star system into everyone's head, and no one realizes how flawed it actually is. I also wouldn't say that everyone you listed had a ton more "five star" matches than Cena either, but again, that doesn't mean that they didn't have great matches.

Of course there are tons of wrestlers who give it their all, but for some reason, their all doesn't connect with the audience the same way Austin's or Cena's "all" does. That wasn't even close to being my main point. Austin and Cena had and have skills that not many people have, and when they execute those skills in the ring to the highest possible level, they create magic. That's what a wrestler's goal should be - to create magic. MITB was magic, and it wouldn't have been if you replaced Cena with somebody else. The same can be said for Bret/Austin or any of the Rock/Austins. Same thing with the two Cena/Michaels matches. If it's always the other guy, then why doesn't that other guy have that same match with everybody he wrestles? No combination of two wrestlers is going to give you the same match as another combination. Thus, when you recollect and look back on great matches, you have to give credit to both guys.

 

[TheGodDamnDustin]

I concede. I'm not being sarcastic in the slightest when I say... you opened my eyes. I never realized how many matches at least invoked a response out of me. Cena/JBL. Cena/Triple H. Cena/Michaels. Cena/Batista. Cena/Jericho.
I honestly mean this, I never realized how much he makes me want to watch his matches, just to see if Superman can actually die.
And the times when he does lose are that much more meaningful.
Touche'.

 

[BigPoppaPunk]

Saying it takes two to pull of a great match and then saying that Cena is a bad wrestler is as hypocritical as it gets. You can't just apply points to certain people and then not apply them to others, that is the very definition of being biased. I think Austin and Cena have both consistently displayed the ability to adapt to their opponents and to thrive in big match situations throughout the years. Each has a tremendous laundry list of great matches and to call either bad in the ring shows either a complete lack of wrestling knowledge, an extreme bias, or in Austin's case, bitterness because he dissed your favorite wrestler.

As for my comments on it, I was only pointing out that Austin was better at adapting to his opponent's style. Cena can do that to some degree, but he isn't nearly as technical as Austin could be. I never claimed Cena is a bad wrestler, I just think unless he's wrestling someone great, he tends to get lazy and not try new things. He's proved on certain occasions he can have very good matches, although I wouldn't call any of his work in the ring great.

However, I've said it before about Austin and I'll say it now about Cena. Not every wrestler should be a technical wrestler. That would be plain, boring and very uninteresting. Cena is decent if you judge him for what he is, a mediocre brawler who can have good matches with the right opponent.

As for me being biased, my above comments about both being a Cena fan and defending Austin being bashed tend to contradict any bias. If anything, I'd say I'm objectively judging each guy's strengths and weaknesses. You can't be any more unbiased than that.

 

[Good Golly It's Ollie]

Hey, since Orton agrees with Austin on this, and no-one else would consider this 'burial' anyway, I think we can agree that Austin didn't even intend that.

Kudos to Randy for being mature enough to recognise it as constructive criticism, not a personal attack: "Austin is right. There is still room for me to move up the ladder." - From his Twitter

 

[MrMojoRisin]

On Del Rio:
Alberto Del Rio reminds me of Gino Hernandez from the old [Dallas] Sportatorium. [He is] another one who needs to work on his promos-I don?t like them worth a shit right now-but he has great ability,? said Stone Cold.

?He just needs to add a few pieces to the puzzle.?

Dude, that is not Austin trying to bury Del Rio in any way whatsoever. I take it you have no idea who Gino Hernandez was, so let me leave you with a couple of things on him.

For a guy from Texas like Austin, who would have watched WCCW as a kid, comparing someone to Hernandez is one of the biggest compliments he could give. Had Gino lived, he would have been a HUGE deal in wrestling. As it turned out, he was one of the brightest heels in the business when he passed, but hadn't had the opportunity yet to move past World Class and onto a more national stage like WWF or with Crockett.

If you want an idea of who Austin compared him to, check out this video. If Del Rio can ever pull off an angle like this one, he'll be talked about as one of the undisputed greats of today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWen4wGqxGA