Rock only became mega popular cause Austin wasn't around?

[klunderbunker]

I said after Austin lost at Summerslam the fans wanted the belt more on The Rock, The Rock was getting screwed out of the title or title shots before Summerslam.

http://wrestlingclassics.com/.ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=116219

Where the hell is Steve Austin's name for 1999?

You seem very ignorant and just wanna get the last word in.

Actually you said:

Do you realize that all of Austin's WWF Title reigns or when he was chasing the title until the buildup to Summerslam 1999 was Vince McMahon opposing Austin being the champion, right? By the time Austin lost the title after Summerslam the fans wanted to see Rock with the title more than Austin, why do you think they had The Rock always losing in a WWF Title match by screwjob every month for nearly a year starting in the summer of that year?

As in starting in the summer of 1999, which is what I proved you wrong on. But now you want to talk about BEFORE Summerslam 1999 so we'll do that instead. We'll start in the beginning of 1999 when Rock was challenging for the title and a heel.

Early 1999: Rock wins the title in late January and is still a heel. He loses it at Halftime Heat due to a fair loss. He gets it back in a February ladder match and is still a heel.

Spring 1999: Rock loses the title and the rematch to Austin and is still a heel and still Corporate, meaning I HIGHLY doubt the fans wanted to see the title on him.

Summer 1999: Rock loses the title match at King of the Ring in a screwy fashion. The next night on Raw, Austin wins the title from Undertaker in the highest rated Raw match of all time.

Rock doesn't get another televised title match until after Summerslam on the first Smackdown.

So in other words he spent the first let's say four months of the year as a heel, got screwed out of the title once and the night after that, Austin draws the highest rated match ever on Raw as he wins the title, holding it until Summerslam.

But I'm sure that the data and lack of screwjobs still support your claim somehow right?

Oh and in case you're wondering where I'm getting this from:

http://profightdb.com/wrestlers/the-rock-229.html?year=1999&res=2000

 

[SCrooked1]

As in starting in the summer of 1999, which is what I proved you wrong on. But now you want to talk about BEFORE Summerslam 1999 so we'll do that instead. We'll start in the beginning of 1999 when Rock was challenging for the title and a heel.

Early 1999: Rock wins the title in late January and is still a heel. He loses it at Halftime Heat due to a fair loss. He gets it back in a February ladder match and is still a heel.

Spring 1999: Rock loses the title and the rematch to Austin and is still a heel and still Corporate, meaning I HIGHLY doubt the fans wanted to see the title on him.

Summer 1999: Rock loses the title match at King of the Ring in a screwy fashion. The next night on Raw, Austin wins the title from Undertaker in the highest rated Raw match of all time.

Rock doesn't get another televised title match until after Summerslam on the first Smackdown.

So in other words he spent the first let's say four months of the year as a heel, got screwed out of the title once and the night after that, Austin draws the highest rated match ever on Raw as he wins the title, holding it until Summerslam.

But I'm sure that the data and lack of screwjobs still support your claim somehow right?

Oh and in case you're wondering where I'm getting this from:

http://profightdb.com/wrestlers/the-rock-229.html?year=1999&res=2000

I meant after Rock turned face, why are you bringing up the months when he was a heel?! The Rock was screwed out of a title shot when he lost to HHH in a Strap Match in July. It still revolved around the WWF Title even though wasn't a title match.

Understand?

 

[klunderbunker]

Then why is Rock #1 in the lists I posted instead of Austin? If Austin really was the top draw for 1999, they would've put his name instead of The Rock, simple as that!

You're right, Austin was booked as the top guy, but Rock was still listed as #1 over him. Why do you think they had Rock feud with and even sometimes lose to midcarders in 1999? They didn't want him to surpass Austin, but it happened. In the final 2 months of 1999 when Austin wasn't there Rock was actually main eventing less than he was in September and October when Austin was still around.

Again, if you actually read the links you sent me, Rock drew bigger in big arenas. That doesn't mean he's a bigger draw overall at all. It means he's bigger in a certain ranking. As I've said time after time in this, yes Rock probably did catch Austin at the end, and that has pretty much nothing to do with the point of this thread.

The point of this, again, is that Rock was a huge star. My point is that without Austin leaving, Rock wouldn't have reached the superstar status he hit in 2000 and after. It's the same scenario as 1990 with Hogan and Warrior but reversed: as long as Hogan was around, Warrior was still going to be challenged for the top spot and couldn't get up above Hogan by a wide margin. Rock might have been the bigger star through all of 2000 with Austin there too, but I find it really hard to believe that he would have become THE top face with Austin there as well. Austin had a very big following still and it would have taken away some of Rock's fans. With Rock as the lone face of the company, he was able to reach the status he's known for now, which is still significantly behind Austin.

 

[klunderbunker]

I meant after Rock turned face, why are you bringing up the months when he was a heel?! The Rock was screwed out of a title shot when he lost to HHH in a Strap Match in July. It still revolved around the WWF Title even though wasn't a title match.

Understand?

You said earlier in the year so I talked about earlier in the year. It was your bright idea to talk about 1999 when Rock wasn't screwed out of the title time after time like you keep saying he was. As for the strap match, yeah it has to do with the title, but that doesn't mean he was screwed out of the title, which is what you were talking about. Losing a #1 contenders match doesn't mean you're screwed out of the title. Not to mention, if Rock was as popular as you're claiming, why did it take them 4 months after Austin left to put him in a title match? Wouldn't WWF want to make as much money as they could as fast as they could off of him? I get the idea of a slow build, but they didn't pull the trigger at Mania. They waited until that one guy was there to help him. What was his name again.....? Austin I believe?

 

[Chris1-16]

Again, if you actually read the links you sent me, Rock drew bigger in big arenas. That doesn't mean he's a bigger draw overall at all. It means he's bigger in a certain ranking. As I've said time after time in this, yes Rock probably did catch Austin at the end, and that has pretty much nothing to do with the point of this thread.

The point of this, again, is that Rock was a huge star. My point is that without Austin leaving, Rock wouldn't have reached the superstar status he hit in 2000 and after. It's the same scenario as 1990 with Hogan and Warrior but reversed: as long as Hogan was around, Warrior was still going to be challenged for the top spot and couldn't get up above Hogan by a wide margin. Rock might have been the bigger star through all of 2000 with Austin there too, but I find it really hard to believe that he would have become THE top face with Austin there as well. Austin had a very big following still and it would have taken away some of Rock's fans. With Rock as the lone face of the company, he was able to reach the status he's known for now, which is still significantly behind Austin.

Austin obviously wasn't the bigger draw in 1999 either if his name isn't on the top drawing lists I posted.

But of course if Austin's name was there instead of The Rock's you would've said Austin was the bigger draw of the 2 that year right?

Double standard!

 

[SCrooked1]

You said earlier in the year so I talked about earlier in the year. It was your bright idea to talk about 1999 when Rock wasn't screwed out of the title time after time like you keep saying he was. As for the strap match, yeah it has to do with the title, but that doesn't mean he was screwed out of the title, which is what you were talking about. Losing a #1 contenders match doesn't mean you're screwed out of the title. Not to mention, if Rock was as popular as you're claiming, why did it take them 4 months after Austin left to put him in a title match? Wouldn't WWF want to make as much money as they could as fast as they could off of him? I get the idea of a slow build, but they didn't pull the trigger at Mania. They waited until that one guy was there to help him. What was his name again.....? Austin I believe?

They were trying to get HHH over as a heel, that's why Rock didn't have the WWF Title for a while after Austin left. Hell Rock was hardly main eventing in December 1999.

You'll say anything to get the last word huh?

 

[klunderbunker]

Austin obviously wasn't the bigger draw in 1999 either if his name isn't on the top drawing lists I posted.

But of course if Austin's name was there instead of The Rock's you would've said Austin was the bigger draw of the 2 that year right?

Double standard!

So let me make sure I have this right.....what the heck are you talking about?

How in the world do you still try to validate that Austin wasn't bigger? How? The "what's hot" section of WWF Shopzone? The idea of Rock headlining shows with bigger crowds which again, says zero about smaller crowd shows, as in the majority of house shows, as in the majority of the shows of the year and where the most money comes from? Or the fact that the same source you keep using over and over again named Austin as the top box office draw in its official awards? How are you validating it?

If that award said Rock on it, then I'd agree with you. Or if it made ANY LOGICAL SENSE, I'd agree with you. Rock was a heel for the first five months of the year. Heels, for the most part, aren't the major draws. In the summer, Austin was still top face on the card and therefore was the draw at the shows. Rock doesn't even come close to Austin until the end of the year whcih is when Austin was gone for part of it (including some time after Summerslam). So, again, Rock took over when Austin wasn't around as much, which is the crux of this whole thing.

 

[GameOver]

Stating the obvious..... Sigh!!!
Austin like Cena was marketed as the MAIN CHARACTER ofcourse they would get the biggest pops and all the perks and be listed as the biggest draw and The Rock was a heel for longer.

But i'll turn this around and say Austin wouldn't have been so top for so long if it hadn't been for Taker, Triple H, Vince and The Rock, all of them did there job to cement Austin as the face of the company and were at the top of there game and none took a back seat to the other. And if it came down to just an entertainment perspective Austin would lose. Hands Down

as for merchandise
Just cause WWE didn't push out the merchandise doesn't mean someone isn't hugely popular, and just cause people don't buy the merchandise doesn't mean they aren't very over.
and a major draw card.

i don't buy any merchandise ever. Does that mean i don't like any of them? or don't buy PPV's to see someone in a match?
When u look around the crowd, how many Taker shirts or HBK shirts did you ever see in the crowds?

Answer bugger all. So by that logic, they weren't popular enough. IMO merchandise is for kids.

and DX is more popular then Austin ever was by that logic too, cause they've certainly sold a shit load more merchandise and people displayed it often.

 

[klunderbunker]

They were trying to get HHH over as a heel, that's why Rock didn't have the WWF Title for a while after Austin left. Hell Rock was hardly main eventing in December 1999.

You'll say anything to get the last word huh?

Actually if I wanted to have the last word I would lock this thread and ban everyone that argues with me because I'm admin and can do that but that would spoil the fun I'm having.

So they were trying to get HHH over as a heel, so according to you, who says Rock was the top face, they had him beat up the second biggest face. Why wouldn't they have him go after the top guy in the company, which according to you was Rock? If he's going to be champion, shouldn't he go after the top guy? That makes sense right? He went after Austin, as in the top guy. Once Austin was gone, Rock became the top face, which is the whole point of this....again.

 

[Chris1-16]

So let me make sure I have this right.....what the heck are you talking about?

How in the world do you still try to validate that Austin wasn't bigger? How? The "what's hot" section of WWF Shopzone? The idea of Rock headlining shows with bigger crowds which again, says zero about smaller crowd shows, as in the majority of house shows, as in the majority of the shows of the year and where the most money comes from? Or the fact that the same source you keep using over and over again named Austin as the top box office draw in its official awards? How are you validating it?

If that award said Rock on it, then I'd agree with you. Or if it made ANY LOGICAL SENSE, I'd agree with you. Rock was a heel for the first five months of the year. Heels, for the most part, aren't the major draws. In the summer, Austin was still top face on the card and therefore was the draw at the shows. Rock doesn't even come close to Austin until the end of the year whcih is when Austin was gone for part of it (including some time after Summerslam). So, again, Rock took over when Austin wasn't around as much, which is the crux of this whole thing.

Austin was headlining in the summer because the Vince McMahon storyline was still going on clown, Rock was already popular in the summer. Why would they do Rock vs. McMahon, what sense would that make?

And Austin was only gone for 2 weeks after Summerslam, the same timeframe he was gone in December 1998, and he was still the hottest draw in wrestling in the 2 weeks he was out in December 1998. That's the major difference between the 2 weeks he was gone in December 1998 and August-September 1999.

 

[klunderbunker]

Austin was headlining in the summer because the Vince McMahon storyline was still going on clown, Rock was already popular in the summer. Why would they do Rock vs. McMahon, what sense would that make?

And Austin was only gone for 2 weeks after Summerslam, the same timeframe he was gone in December 1998, and he was still the hottest draw in wrestling in the 2 weeks he was out in December 1998. That's the major difference between the 2 weeks he was gone in December 1998 and August-September 1999.

Vince was top heel in the summer. I don't think anyone would argue that. If Rock was the top face, shouldn't it have transitioned over to Rock vs. Vince? Wouldn't that make the most sense, if ROck was the top star like you keep saying he was? However it didn't do that, probably because Austin was still the top star. Why would you put guys that won't draw the best on top of the card? That makes even less sense. Austin was on top because he drew the best still.

 

[SCrooked1]

Actually if I wanted to have the last word I would lock this thread and ban everyone that argues with me because I'm admin and can do that but that would spoil the fun I'm having.

So they were trying to get HHH over as a heel, so according to you, who says Rock was the top face, they had him beat up the second biggest face. Why wouldn't they have him go after the top guy in the company, which according to you was Rock? If he's going to be champion, shouldn't he go after the top guy? That makes sense right? He went after Austin, as in the top guy. Once Austin was gone, Rock became the top face, which is the whole point of this....again.

Austin was the one that needed to take off, why would HHH wanna take The Rock out if Rock didn't need to take time off?

I think you really are just talking out your ass now.

 

[Chris1-16]

Vince was top heel in the summer. I don't think anyone would argue that. If Rock was the top face, shouldn't it have transitioned over to Rock vs. Vince? Wouldn't that make the most sense, if ROck was the top star like you keep saying he was? However it didn't do that, probably because Austin was still the top star. Why would you put guys that won't draw the best on top of the card? That makes even less sense. Austin was on top because he drew the best still.

Who said Rock was booked as the top face that summer?

He was feuding with HHH and Billy f'king Gunn. I said he was already very popular in the summer. Why would it be Rock vs. Vince McMahon? Rock didn't have a reason to feud with Vince idiot.

 

[amazing_blue]

I've been following this thread, and since KB basically gave everyone an open invitation, I have a question.

KB- You said that comparing Steve Austin's drawing power in 2001 to The Rock's would be like comparing Bruno Sammartino's drawing power today to John Cena's. How is that even fair to say? Austin was gone for one year, and when he came back it was still the attitude era and he was fresh in everyone's minds. Bruno has been gone for decades and half of the modern day fans don't even know he exists.

 

[klunderbunker]

Austin was the one that needed to take off, why would HHH wanna take The Rock out if Rock didn't need to take time off?

I think you really are just talking out your ass now.

From a kayfabe perspective, Rock was the up and comer while Austin was the old one that had been injured before. You take out Rock and cut the legs out from under him before he can rise up and become a real threat, as opposed to Austin who was banged up from previous injuries. Basic battle plan.

 

[klunderbunker]

Who said Rock was booked as the top face that summer?

He was feuding with HHH and Billy f'king Gunn. I said he was already very popular in the summer. Why would it be Rock vs. Vince McMahon? Rock didn't have a reason to feud with Vince idiot.

See, in wrestling, there's this thing called building a storyline. When one is put together, you can make up any reason for a feud you want.

Also Rock had been in the Corporation earlier in the year and had been kicked out of the group by Shane, who was now united with Vince. There's your story right there, but I guess that's too complex.

 

[klunderbunker]

I've been following this thread, and since KB basically gave everyone an open invitation, I have a question.

KB- You said that comparing Steve Austin's drawing power in 2001 to The Rock's would be like comparing Bruno Sammartino's drawing power today to John Cena's. How is that even fair to say? Austin was gone for one year, and when he came back it was still the attitude era and he was fresh in everyone's minds. Bruno has been gone for decades and half of the modern day fans don't even know he exists.

Figure of speech dude. We'll go with something that makes a bit more logical sense. It would be like comparing Cena's popularity today with Shawn Michaels. Shawn used to be incredibly popular but he's gotten older and wasn't as good or popular as he was in the 90s. He'd still get a huge pop, but it wouldn't be as strong as Cena's because Shawn isn't the performer he used to be. It's the same with anyone that comes back after a lengthy (and a year in wrestling is closer to an eternity than a long time) absence.

 

[Scorpion Eye]

Bret Hart, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Shawn Michaels, HHH, Mick Foley, the Undertaker and Mr. McMahon all worked together to help make each other over with the fans! In theory its nice to argue who was bigger; Austin or Rock but in reality its NONSENSE! Take any of these stars i listed out of the equation and all of the other's career's suffer.

For example

No Bret Hart: Who is there to to help make HBK a star? Who helps make Austin look like gold at Wrestlemania? How does Vince introduce the "Mr. McMahon" character

No HHH: Who does the Rock feud with over the IC title while part of the Nation of Domination? Who teams with HBK to form DX?

Etc etc.

Not one of these wrestlers were over with out help from some of the others listed. All the best feuds d slighty before and during the Attitude Era consisted of these guys.
Beside whose to say that Austin and Rock were the 2 top guys? Why cuz they got pops from the crowds? Cuz a wrestling magazine said so? What about HHH? There is no question that he had the best run of HEEL during this perod. Would you say Sting was more over Flair just cuz Sting was a face? The biggest problem we make as humans is trying to dissect everything like its freaking part of the periodic table. Instead of just appreciating what we had in front of us!

 

[Chris1-16]

See, in wrestling, there's this thing called building a storyline. When one is put together, you can make up any reason for a feud you want.

Also Rock had been in the Corporation earlier in the year and had been kicked out of the group by Shane, who was now united with Vince. There's your story right there, but I guess that's too complex.

Both of the McMahons, along with the Undertaker, were feuding with Austin in the summer, not just Vince.

Rock was feuding with HHH over costing him the WWF Title.

GOT IT?!

 

[klunderbunker]

Both of the McMahons, along with the Undertaker, were feuding with Austin in the summer, not just Vince.

Rock was feuding with HHH over costing him the WWF Title.

GOT IT?!

And during the summer of 1999 HHH was in the....in the.....wait for it.....THE CORPATE MINISTRY BABY!!! As in Vince and Shane's team! As in there was a point for them to feud, mainly due to HHH and Vince working together in the faction. In other words, it would have made perfect sense to transition to Rock vs. Vince if Rock was going to be the face of the company.

 

[Chris1-16]

And during the summer of 1999 HHH was in the....in the.....wait for it.....THE CORPATE MINISTRY BABY!!! As in Vince and Shane's team! As in there was a point for them to feud, mainly due to HHH and Vince working together in the faction. In other words, it would have made perfect sense to transition to Rock vs. Vince if Rock was going to be the face of the company.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense my man, perfect sense. They were gonna just switch it up to Rock vs. Vince McMahon out of nowhere after it was Austin vs. Vince McMahon for more than a year at that point.

 

[HamSwissman]

that is what i remember as well. i think this thread should be about mick foley gaining popularity because of the lack of other top guys instead.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers it this way. As a matter of fact, I recall being with a group of friends during the Survivor Series when The Rock turned back to being full-blown heel. When he turned, our immediate reaction was that Rocky was getting "too over", and had to be brought back down to keep Austin the top guy. I don't know if that is actually the reasoning behind the heel turn (highly unlikely, actually), but the fact that all six of us thought the same thing really points to the popularity of The Rock at the time.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yeah, that makes perfect sense my man, perfect sense. They were gonna just switch it up to Rock vs. Vince McMahon out of nowhere after it was Austin vs. Vince McMahon for more than a year at that point.

Well if Rock was the top draw over Austin at this point as you've told me time and time again in this thread, it would make the most sense right? I mean, the point of the company is to make money and if Rock was a bigger draw than Austin based on.....whatever in the world you're basing it on, then it would make the most business sense to put him vs. Vince which had a story to it. Austin was feuding with HHH so Vince had nothing else to do, so why not? I mean, based on everything you've said Rock was the biggest face by then so why not?

 

[Chris1-16]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers it this way. As a matter of fact, I recall being with a group of friends during the Survivor Series when The Rock turned back to being full-blown heel. When he turned, our immediate reaction was that Rocky was getting "too over", and had to be brought back down to keep Austin the top guy. I don't know if that is actually the reasoning behind the heel turn (highly unlikely, actually), but the fact that all six of us thought the same thing really points to the popularity of The Rock at the time.

Well, here's what I say about it...

Obviously at the time the Vince McMahon-Austin storyline was still going on, so they had to turn Rock heel for him to get the WWF Title so that way, Austin stays the #1 face, Rock is the WWF Champion, and the McMahon-Austin storyline stays hot.

Well if Rock was the top draw over Austin at this point as you've told me time and time again in this thread, it would make the most sense right? I mean, the point of the company is to make money and if Rock was a bigger draw than Austin based on.....whatever in the world you're basing it on, then it would make the most business sense to put him vs. Vince which had a story to it. Austin was feuding with HHH so Vince had nothing else to do, so why not? I mean, based on everything you've said Rock was the biggest face by then so why not?

Rock wasn't booked as the top star. Obviously if Austin was still feuding with Vince after Rock turned face and Rock wasn't a heel anymore both can't be in the main event at the same time. He was feuding and sometimes losing to midcarders (Al Snow anyone!?! And it happened in December '99, when Austin wasn't even there!!!) that year while Austin hardly wrestled anyone under main event level that year. That was the main difference between the way Austin and The Rock were booked in 1999.

 

[This Is My Name Thank You]

Damn you guys are taking this shit way to personal what the fuck. Damn Stone Cold and the Rock are both fucking awesome. We don't need a million facts for this shit do we? I read every fuckin post between you guys and it is seriously what the fuck!!!! Have a beer and eat some pie and chill out. Relax bro's its just wrestling not like you guys are going to win a million fuckin dollars. Damn seriously this makes posting on these forums stupid because everyone has to bitch moan an cry like a school girl pussy on who is right. For one fuck WIKIPEDIA as half the time they seem wrong in my opinon. OH WAIT BASH ME FOR I GAVE MY OPINION RIGHT??? Wanna argue something argue what the fucking defintion of opinion means. Seriously wrestling is fucking fake but your debating it as if it was real and serious. Werstling is wrestling thats what it is.

Now seriously I think the Rock would of gotten big wether Austin was there or not. WHY becuase eventually some one gets old to the eyes of the public so they look for someone new. An also for the fact WWE likes to have a few well known main guys and the Rock was damn good enough to get to the top with or with out Austin.

An for my opinion Austin and Rock are both awesome and two different characters and I like both equally the same. SURE BASH THE FUCK OUT OF ME FOR IT.