This is not to start an argument, but I am just curious as to what you consider to be a megastar in the WWE Klunder? I mean, aren't guys like Macho Man, The Ultimate Warrior, Andre The Giant all megastars and household names even though they were in the shadow of Hulkamania for some of, and in the case of some, most of their careers? IDK, i guess I just have a different opinion about the wrestling industry than most. I never think there is just one guy at the top, one guy who is THE guy. I always think there are multiple THE guys in the company, the champ and the guys who are pushed up to chase them. So while Hulk was huge in the 80's, I think guys like Macho and Warrior were equally as huge, and got equally as big of pops as him. While Austin was huge in the late 90's, i think guys like Bret and Shawn and Taker and The Rock were equally as huge, and were equally megastars during that time. Especially in the case of The Rock. In 1999, he was certainly getting as big as pops as Austin, he was selling a huge amount of merchandise, he was getting just as much airtime as Austin, and he had one of his catchphrases become a weekly television show. I guess I just want to know what else Rock had to do in order to become a Megastar in the company in your eyes Klunder? Just curious is all.
Rock only became mega popular cause Austin wasn't around?
- Thread starter Carolina dude
- Start date
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
This really should be in a different thread so if you want to talk about it I'd be glad to but not in here as it's not related. If you're talking about all time, it's Hogan, Austin, Rock in that order and then there's a big gap to the next batch. Those three are indeed household names and are well known everywhere. Names like Andre the Giant and Savage are known but they're known as wrestlers and that's about it. The other three are pop culture icons, especially Hogan. I'd put those three on one level, then Cena, HHH and Savage on the next. I'd put Undertaker and Shawn and Bret the next one down because Undertaker certainly isn't a household name and the other two are big but only in wrestling for the most part.
I intentionally left Andre off because he was at his peak in an era that you really can't compare with the others.
If you want me to go into this further ask me in my thread because it's spam here.
JUSTINMFNBEEMER
Occasional Pre-Show
rock to austin? my question is, who cares, two assholes that took off when the going got tough, rock for his movies, austin, cuz, well, hes not hogan, boo hoo, go hit your wife some more, now lets fast forward, everyones cm punk did this, does that, well, ya, he is kicking some ass, funny thing tho, i heard hes wrestling some guy, not any guy, its fucking triple h, the best in the business, remember like a year ago ppl were wondering where he was, well we got him back, enjoy it!
Brahma Bull
Getting Noticed By Management
No one knows, but i would say yes. the rock was quickly catching up on scsa in terms of popularity in 1999, and may have even surpassed him. there is nothing to say that one wrestler cant step out of the shadows of the face of the company to become the new face. wrestlers have done it before. when scsa came back, he was not on the rock's level. who lead the wwf against the invasion? who faced hogan to get the torch passed to them? and if you try to come back with austin was going to face hogan but they couldnt work it out, prove it. kb, i know you like to be right, but other people have at least put forward some proof, i just see some weak logic from you. i think you just need to face it, these guys beat you.
Hulk Hogan's Brother
Stop asking me what I'm gonna do!!!
I think most Rock fans get pissy at this question because they believe that everything depends on talent in this world and if somehow they are proved wrong here, that would mean that Rock was less talented than Austin.
As KB has already explained roughly 34 times in this thread, that is not the case. It is a simple case of precedence. Austin got big before the Rock did and therefore there was no chance in hell that Rock would become the number one guy before Austin left OR gave him the rub. That has always been the case. You could argue till you are blue in the face that HBK was more popular than Bret Hart in 1995 but that will not change the fact that HBK only became the face of the company once he defeated Bret at Mania 12 and Bret left.
If Austin would have stayed, it would have been a situation like Cena and Orton now. Orton was getting huge pops in early 2010 and also getting close to Cena in merch sales but Cena never left or lost to him clean in a big match and therefore Orton had to be content to be a close second. I was a situation that had nothing to do with the talent of the people involved. That is what would have happened and as KB has pointed out that is what happened in the early part of 1999. You can say that Austin was booked that way or that he was a politician or any other bullcrap of that sort but it is an undisputable fact that Rock needed Austin in one way or another to get over. He either needed him to stay away or turn heel and give him a rub. That is how professional wrestling works and if you are disputing that fact you are just being plain stupid.
This debate as I said earlier has nothing to do with talent, it is about opportunity. If Austin would not have left, Rock would have never had the opportunity of becoming the number one face.
As KB has already explained roughly 34 times in this thread, that is not the case. It is a simple case of precedence. Austin got big before the Rock did and therefore there was no chance in hell that Rock would become the number one guy before Austin left OR gave him the rub. That has always been the case. You could argue till you are blue in the face that HBK was more popular than Bret Hart in 1995 but that will not change the fact that HBK only became the face of the company once he defeated Bret at Mania 12 and Bret left.
If Austin would have stayed, it would have been a situation like Cena and Orton now. Orton was getting huge pops in early 2010 and also getting close to Cena in merch sales but Cena never left or lost to him clean in a big match and therefore Orton had to be content to be a close second. I was a situation that had nothing to do with the talent of the people involved. That is what would have happened and as KB has pointed out that is what happened in the early part of 1999. You can say that Austin was booked that way or that he was a politician or any other bullcrap of that sort but it is an undisputable fact that Rock needed Austin in one way or another to get over. He either needed him to stay away or turn heel and give him a rub. That is how professional wrestling works and if you are disputing that fact you are just being plain stupid.
This debate as I said earlier has nothing to do with talent, it is about opportunity. If Austin would not have left, Rock would have never had the opportunity of becoming the number one face.
They were supposedly gonna turn Austin heel, of course both weren't gonna stay face the entire year. One of them was gonna turn, and it was more than likely gonna be Austin. As stated, there wasn't anything left Austin could do as a face. His 1998-mid 1999 WWF Title title run/chase all revolved around Vince McMahon not wanting him to be the champion, that's what the major draw of the WWF was throughout 1998 all the way up until the summer of 1999.
By the summer of 1999 the Austin-McMahon storyline was on its last legs and they ended it right before Summerslam, and in between the time Vince was "off TV" until the moment Austin left for surgery, Austin was just "there". He was still getting cheered, but without Vince McMahon opposing him being the WWF Champion, how could Austin have another interesting title reign? The reason Austin was such a successful face champion was because he was everything Vince didn't want in a champion, and by the fall Vince had no beef with Austin anymore, he really hated HHH. Also the fans wanted Rock to be the champion more than anyone else in the WWF in the fall of 1999, even over Austin. Again, you can't go by revisionist history, you have to visualize back when it was current and Austin wasn't on the shelf yet. Also the Rock-N-Sock Connection arguably was seen as the bigger focus heading to No Mercy '99, as the Austin-HHH "feud" was pretty much a 1 sided beatdown per week fest in favor of Austin. HHH was a pretty lameduck heel champion in the fall of '99 compared to how strong of a heel he was by the time Austin came back.
That's what was trying to be explained to KB, but he went on a long debate for whatever reason.
By the summer of 1999 the Austin-McMahon storyline was on its last legs and they ended it right before Summerslam, and in between the time Vince was "off TV" until the moment Austin left for surgery, Austin was just "there". He was still getting cheered, but without Vince McMahon opposing him being the WWF Champion, how could Austin have another interesting title reign? The reason Austin was such a successful face champion was because he was everything Vince didn't want in a champion, and by the fall Vince had no beef with Austin anymore, he really hated HHH. Also the fans wanted Rock to be the champion more than anyone else in the WWF in the fall of 1999, even over Austin. Again, you can't go by revisionist history, you have to visualize back when it was current and Austin wasn't on the shelf yet. Also the Rock-N-Sock Connection arguably was seen as the bigger focus heading to No Mercy '99, as the Austin-HHH "feud" was pretty much a 1 sided beatdown per week fest in favor of Austin. HHH was a pretty lameduck heel champion in the fall of '99 compared to how strong of a heel he was by the time Austin came back.
That's what was trying to be explained to KB, but he went on a long debate for whatever reason.
Didn't mean the Rock-N-Sock Connection was the bigger focus, but the more entertaining storyline heading into No Mercy '99.
Really though, compare the fall of 1998 when Austin didn't have the WWF Title to the fall of 1999 when Austin didn't have it.
Biggest difference with the former year? Vince McMahon not wanting him to be the WWF Champion!!!
That's why Austin was without a doubt the hottest draw in wrestling in the fall of '98, while he was still getting cheered but no longer the hottest draw in wrestling in the fall of '99, Vince McMahon was the difference maker. Even in the month Austin was feuding with the Undertaker near the end of the year, Vince still played a role in that feud when he clearly stated that "Austin had to win to get back in the title picture", so even the Buried Alive Match revolved around the Austin/Vince McMahon storyline and the WWF Title.
The ying yang KB was spewing in his posts just baffled me, I mean really. The guy just didn't have any idea what he was talking about.
Really though, compare the fall of 1998 when Austin didn't have the WWF Title to the fall of 1999 when Austin didn't have it.
Biggest difference with the former year? Vince McMahon not wanting him to be the WWF Champion!!!
That's why Austin was without a doubt the hottest draw in wrestling in the fall of '98, while he was still getting cheered but no longer the hottest draw in wrestling in the fall of '99, Vince McMahon was the difference maker. Even in the month Austin was feuding with the Undertaker near the end of the year, Vince still played a role in that feud when he clearly stated that "Austin had to win to get back in the title picture", so even the Buried Alive Match revolved around the Austin/Vince McMahon storyline and the WWF Title.
The ying yang KB was spewing in his posts just baffled me, I mean really. The guy just didn't have any idea what he was talking about.
Yep, you got it!
Really it's all about logic, and he was just saying some of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on this forum. Saying things like "HHH should've took The Rock out instead of Austin at Survivor Series since Rock was the up and comer that was getting bigger by the day while Austin was the established top draw".
Why Always Me
WWF Champion
Ok - first of all I have debated this with klunderbunker before and his opinion will never change, but that's why we are all here, to debate and discuss.
Rock would of reached the level he reached whether Austin was out or not. By the time Austin was run over The Rock was at the very least as popular, maybe more popular. KB, if you think that isn't ht e case than that is just plain ignorance on your part. I have read many of KB's reviews when Austin and Rock are interacting and KB clearly favour's Austin.
IMO (and I stated this in another thread), when Austin left for 10 months he didn't pass the torch, The Rock took it from him. Austin didn't do the job for The Rock until Survivor Series 2001. The Rock never beat Austin in a WWF Title match so it's not like he was groomed to be number 1 in Austin's absence. As was stated in the Chicago times, the WWF were thinking of turning Austin heel and The Rock was getting more popular.
At the end of the day, whilst Rock is my favourite, they are both pretty equal in terms of star power, faces of company etc. Austin was the face of the Attitude Era from WM14 till about SummerSlam 1999, then Rock overtook thereafter. To say that The Rock would not of been as big if Austin was around is stupid (again I'm looking at you KB). Who knows, if Austin had stayed and turned heel, Rock could of been even bigger, because then he would of been going up against Triple H and Austin and probably Vince more too.
Austin v McMahon was an awesome storyline, one of my favourite feuds ever. But KB, answer me this, whilst Austin was feuding with McMahon and fighting for the WWF Title, why was Rock becoming just as popular when only feuding with Billy Gunn, British Bulldog, and Al Snow? Your argument is that Rock wouldn't of become as big if Austin was around, yet The Rock was becoming huge whilst having mid-card feuds, whilst Austin was pushed as the face of the WWF by Vince. and main eventing almost every PPV.
I look forward to your reply
Rock would of reached the level he reached whether Austin was out or not. By the time Austin was run over The Rock was at the very least as popular, maybe more popular. KB, if you think that isn't ht e case than that is just plain ignorance on your part. I have read many of KB's reviews when Austin and Rock are interacting and KB clearly favour's Austin.
IMO (and I stated this in another thread), when Austin left for 10 months he didn't pass the torch, The Rock took it from him. Austin didn't do the job for The Rock until Survivor Series 2001. The Rock never beat Austin in a WWF Title match so it's not like he was groomed to be number 1 in Austin's absence. As was stated in the Chicago times, the WWF were thinking of turning Austin heel and The Rock was getting more popular.
At the end of the day, whilst Rock is my favourite, they are both pretty equal in terms of star power, faces of company etc. Austin was the face of the Attitude Era from WM14 till about SummerSlam 1999, then Rock overtook thereafter. To say that The Rock would not of been as big if Austin was around is stupid (again I'm looking at you KB). Who knows, if Austin had stayed and turned heel, Rock could of been even bigger, because then he would of been going up against Triple H and Austin and probably Vince more too.
Austin v McMahon was an awesome storyline, one of my favourite feuds ever. But KB, answer me this, whilst Austin was feuding with McMahon and fighting for the WWF Title, why was Rock becoming just as popular when only feuding with Billy Gunn, British Bulldog, and Al Snow? Your argument is that Rock wouldn't of become as big if Austin was around, yet The Rock was becoming huge whilst having mid-card feuds, whilst Austin was pushed as the face of the WWF by Vince. and main eventing almost every PPV.
I look forward to your reply
bigsexyNWO
Dark Match Jobber
The rock would have been over even if stone cold wasnt there. stone cold did alot to help the rock and the rock did just as much for stone cold. im just happy they were there when they were coz it made for some great stuff all there WM matches are classics and backlash 1999 was just as good as WM15
He had the rub from Austin and that combined with his work with Mick Foley. As a result the company had two massive faces. WCW would've killed for that kind of depth. To say The Rock was just as popular is simply wrong.
Rock wasn't having mid card feuds, he was still in the main event or just outside it - a remarkable achievement for someone of his experience and age. Nothing was going to stop Austin being "face of the year" (massive understatement btw) because he was super-over before, during and after the McMahon feud.
Yes the Rock was number two face but he was never going to displace Austin.
Austin's injury left a big void but Rock was destined to fill it because he was already the closest to Austin's popularity. The Rock was an incredible face for the company and the ideal person to fill the void filled by Austin.
Ok - first of all I have debated this with klunderbunker before and his opinion will never change, but that's why we are all here, to debate and discuss.
Rock would of reached the level he reached whether Austin was out or not. By the time Austin was run over The Rock was at the very least as popular, maybe more popular. KB, if you think that isn't ht e case than that is just plain ignorance on your part. I have read many of KB's reviews when Austin and Rock are interacting and KB clearly favour's Austin.
IMO (and I stated this in another thread), when Austin left for 10 months he didn't pass the torch, The Rock took it from him. Austin didn't do the job for The Rock until Survivor Series 2001. The Rock never beat Austin in a WWF Title match so it's not like he was groomed to be number 1 in Austin's absence. As was stated in the Chicago times, the WWF were thinking of turning Austin heel and The Rock was getting more popular.
At the end of the day, whilst Rock is my favourite, they are both pretty equal in terms of star power, faces of company etc. Austin was the face of the Attitude Era from WM14 till about SummerSlam 1999, then Rock overtook thereafter. To say that The Rock would not of been as big if Austin was around is stupid (again I'm looking at you KB). Who knows, if Austin had stayed and turned heel, Rock could of been even bigger, because then he would of been going up against Triple H and Austin and probably Vince more too.
Austin v McMahon was an awesome storyline, one of my favourite feuds ever. But KB, answer me this, whilst Austin was feuding with McMahon and fighting for the WWF Title, why was Rock becoming just as popular when only feuding with Billy Gunn, British Bulldog, and Al Snow? Your argument is that Rock wouldn't of become as big if Austin was around, yet The Rock was becoming huge whilst having mid-card feuds, whilst Austin was pushed as the face of the WWF by Vince. and main eventing almost every PPV.
I look forward to your reply
Well if he being biased towards Austin then no one should take him seriously. I can understand if he made some sense. But some of the stuff he said on here was very
.Really read this on why he says Triple H should took out The Rock at Survivor Series instead of Austin:
Doesn't he realize that if Austin were able to wrestle that night they wouldn't have done the segment in the first place? And then saying that why wasn't it Rock vs. Vince McMahon in the summer instead of Austin vs. McMahon if Rock was so popular? And saying The Rock was a midcarder in late 1999 because he was wrestling Al Snow and the New Age Outlaws. Other than Triple H, there were no other main event heels at the time! He wants to bring up the "Austin won Best Office Draw award in 1999 (remember, that's an award, not really legit proof that Austin was the top draw that year)", yet when I show him that it was really The Rock who was listed as the top draw for 1999 he gets all hot in his panties and wants to deny it and saying that's wrong, double standard!
He wants to be so "right" that he stops using logic and just starts saying off the wall ****.
Alright.
The first half of the year, Rock was a heel.
The middle part of the year, Rock was a face, but not in the title picture all the time because Austin was the champion, Austin was now feuding with Undertaker, and still feuding with Vince McMahon.
The last part of the year the Austin-McMahon rivalry was all but finished. He's still getting cheered, but saying he was still the most popular star in the WWF is debatable at best, especially since Rock was arguably even more popular than Austin was by that time.
Why Always Me
WWF Champion
I may be reading this wrong, but you seem to be contradicting yourself there. You say there were two massive faces but then say 'To say The Rock was just as popular is simply wrong', how would you say they were both massive faces if Rock isn't as popular, surely then Rock would just be a popular face in the mold of Mankind, Kane, DX etc.
Rock v Billy Gunn is not a main event feud. Rock v British Bulldog is not a main event feud. Rock v Al Snow is not a main event feud and Rock/Mankind v New Age Outlaws is not a main event feud. 3 of the 4 that I have just listed were on PPV, for the two PPV's that Austin was around he main-evented BOTH times for the WWF Title.
Yes, Rock was the ideal person to fill the void, but that's not whats being debated. The thread title is 'Rock only became mega popular cause Austin wasn't around?' not 'who was best to replace Austin as top face'. Please get your facts right before quoting me.
I think the reason "some people (they know who they are)" deny that Rock ever surpassed Austin (even though he did!) is because Rock was a heel at first and then all of a sudden he started getting cheered and almost immediately rivaled Austin in crowd reaction. If Blunder, Thunder, or whatever that admin's name is wants to be technical about it, Austin was the draw he was for a year and half because of the Vince McMahon storyline. In the fall of '99 was he still feuding with Vince? No he wasn't, so how could he be the undisputed #1, just because his name was "Stone Cold Steve Austin"? Eh-Eh! It don't work that way.
I find it funny why they always talk about the time period after Austin was gone? That's the aftermath!
This topic is on when Rock was a face before Austin left.
frostbite2819
Pre-Show Stalwart
yeah i dont buy it. i remember the exact moment it all changed for me. rock was still in NOD and pretty much booed universally, except for the scattered 'smark' love he was getting. the NOD were having problems with kane and the undertaker and one night on raw they were interviewing NOD backstage and rocky was pretty much like "you know what? you guys go ahead and be cowards, im gonna go handle these guys myself. dont even worry bout it, i got this" well he called kane and UT out, by himself, and they destroyed him of course, but the crowd that night ate him up for his bravery and hilarious interview. wish i still had this on tape, as i honestly think that night was the turning point for the rock, as he started getting louder and louder pops after this. that night certainly made me a fan, and i still remember it fondly after all these years. whether austin was around or not is irrelevant. rock was born to be a star.
True. I think The Rock rising up as high as he did cause jealously with some Austin marks (not all, some).
You know how them admins(ie. Reknubrednulk) be, the split second someone disagrees with them or they really have no idea what they're talking about they go off and want to have a long debate. Then in the end they'll say "I destroyed you/I win/topic over/I'm done talking to you" when almost no one has agreed with what they said in their posts and they run out of things to say.
He can keep his opinion, but the majority didn't agree with him in this topic, so his opinion is stomped on, rolled on, smoked, and burned to the ground!
Why Always Me
WWF Champion
Do you seriously think that gave Rock a 'rub'?
It was great to see Austin come back at that point, even for one night. But as exciting as it was, my excitement when watching that was because he would help Rock become WWF Champion. The roof blew off the MCI Centre for both Austin coming out and Rock winning - it was my favourite moment in WWF history when Hebner counted 1,2,3. But IMO that didn't give Rock a 'rub (sounds rude almost). I think that was to give fans a chance to see Asutin because he was missed. Austin didn't give Rock a 'rub' until Survivor Series 2001 when Rock FINALLY pinned him after about 8 different attempts to defeat him and then that was because Kurt Angle hit Austin with the title, does that mean Kurt gave Rock a 'rub'?
frostbite2819
Pre-Show Stalwart
i mean when it comes down to it who cares really? they were both two of the greatest superstars in the history of the business. does anything else matter?
you guys sound like a bunch of stupid little kids arguing like this. does it effect your day that much that, 'oh my god, someone doesnt feel the same way i do!!!!'
get over yourselves.
they were both awesome and very beneficial to the business.
austin made it big because he worked hard and earned it.
rocky made it big because he worked hard and earned it.
THE FANS made rock, not austin.
and THE FANS made austin, not mcmahon.
who gives a flying fuck who sold more t shirts or won more titles cleanly?
seriously.
you guys sound like a bunch of stupid little kids arguing like this. does it effect your day that much that, 'oh my god, someone doesnt feel the same way i do!!!!'
get over yourselves.
they were both awesome and very beneficial to the business.
austin made it big because he worked hard and earned it.
rocky made it big because he worked hard and earned it.
THE FANS made rock, not austin.
and THE FANS made austin, not mcmahon.
who gives a flying fuck who sold more t shirts or won more titles cleanly?
seriously.
Rock didn't need the 'rub' at that point. The fans wanted Rock to win the WWF Title more than anyone else in the WWF way back in the summer of 1999, it was evident on the premier Smackdown how let down the fans were when Rock didn't win.
HHH pinned Austin more than twice before The Rock ever got a pinfall on him, I'd say Austin gave HHH the 'rub' more than he ever gave Rock one. By the time Rock pinned Austin it didn't mean much at all IMO.
Whether austin was there or not, rock would've been mega popular. If my memory serves me correctly, around Survivor Series '99, rock was getting the biggest pops in the company(yes, even bigger than austin) even though he was fueding with some midcarders(al snow, bossman, billy gunn). Austin before he left was begining to lose his steam, he simply wasn't as hot since his fued with mcmahon. And just like most posters here, I think austin was more protected in booking. Almost 80% of the 1999 and 1998 shows closed with austin having the last laugh(Stunning somebody), to me it's frustrating sometimes, talking about supercena?!... He barley lost. Hell, he refused to put HHH over in summerslam 99. The point is, austin was booked as the guy, but that doesn't mean he was the most popular. Take 2001 for example, austin held the title most of the year and was in the main event picture even though rock was clearly the bigger draw. The funny thing is he barley got in the ring while he was a champion for 6 months, even when he did he was limited more than usual, you can tell his days as an active wrestler are numbered.
I also believe that rock was outselling austin in the fall of '99, so....Anyway, this whole "Rock would've never been as big if austin was around" was vince's idea. Does anybody remember the "I did it for the rock" storyline? The whole storyline was about discrediting the rock and praising austin. Why? Maybe because rock wasn't supposed to be as big as austin, I don't know, or maybe because austin was a huge reason why the wcw is dead, only the guy who said "Rock, as popular as he is, he never quite SCSA" have the answer.
Talking about backlash 2000, it wasn't a rub or anything, it was vinces way to make us believe that if it wasn't for austin, rock would never won the title. In other words, he wanted austin to share the spotlights with rock.
If there is anyone who became a star during austin's absence it's HHH, he's the one who gained the most. He got the whole show centered around him. It's hard to forget about him showing week after week, grabbing a mic and talk about nothing for 20mins.
Just like I've always said, Rock is so underrated when it comes to Rock-Austin, and I blame vince for that.
I also believe that rock was outselling austin in the fall of '99, so....Anyway, this whole "Rock would've never been as big if austin was around" was vince's idea. Does anybody remember the "I did it for the rock" storyline? The whole storyline was about discrediting the rock and praising austin. Why? Maybe because rock wasn't supposed to be as big as austin, I don't know, or maybe because austin was a huge reason why the wcw is dead, only the guy who said "Rock, as popular as he is, he never quite SCSA" have the answer.
Talking about backlash 2000, it wasn't a rub or anything, it was vinces way to make us believe that if it wasn't for austin, rock would never won the title. In other words, he wanted austin to share the spotlights with rock.
If there is anyone who became a star during austin's absence it's HHH, he's the one who gained the most. He got the whole show centered around him. It's hard to forget about him showing week after week, grabbing a mic and talk about nothing for 20mins.
Just like I've always said, Rock is so underrated when it comes to Rock-Austin, and I blame vince for that.
PocketJokers
Occasional Pre-Show
The reason The Rock become megapopular is simple. When he spoke, you listened.
That's it.
That's it.
Do you still think you're always right now fake "administrator reviewer" kb? Saying Austin was more popular and a bigger draw than The Rock as a face in 1999 despite the
fact that the latter won the most popular wrestler award and he was the one listed as top wrestling draw for the year. At least if you wanna debate have your post make some sense.
Almost no one has agreed with what the guy said and then he just disappeared out of frustration, can you say exposed?
Fact-Austin was the top draw in 1998(I said 1998, not 1999 What?!?), when Rock was a heel and IC Champion for most of the year.
Fact-Austin was more protected by booking and didn't even wanna wrestle non-main eventers in '99 when Rock was a face, yet the latter won the most popular face award by PWI and he was named as the top wrestling draw for the year.
Yeah, I remember that night, and that supposed to be his face turn. In fact, summerslam 1998, MSG, was the real turning point for rock, when He went against hhh who was a top face at that time and got cheered, even though he was the number 1 heel in the company(unless you wanna count mcmahon). From that point forward, fans started to look at him differently, his popularity started to grow big time. Hell, he became the number 2 face in the wwe, just behind austin.
Hulk Hogan's Brother
Stop asking me what I'm gonna do!!!
Let me state at the onset that this is going to be a long post. Why? That is because it takes a second to spew thoughtless shit around but quite a long time to clear it up. And I am going to be the one that is going to clear up the shit that has been posted by the posters, mostly biased Rock fans, right now. You know why KB is not responding to you guys? That is because he is not patient when it comes to dealing with ******s.
I guess most of the ******s are not going to read anything past that first paragraph but here goes nothing at trying to hammer some sense into them.
First we have the Wrestling Observer Newsletter award issue:
So now we have some proof that Austin did indeed win the award in 1999 and not Rock. But what about these other lists that posters have posted here claiming that as proof that Rock was indeed a bigger draw than Austin in 1999? Well, let us have a look at them
The bolded part clearly proves that the list has not taken into account the amount a wrestler has drawn in front of smaller audiences. As the WON award proves Austin was king if you take into account both big and small crowds.
And look this link agrees with me as well.
This says that Rock headlined most shows that drew 10,000+ crowds. But if you look at the cards in 1999 you will see that Austin headlined most shows. That proves again that Austin was the bigger draw when you take everything into the equation. This was an article that was written when Rock was returning earlier this year and it highlighted all of Rock's achievements. Yet it says nowhere that Rock was the biggest draw in 1999. So, what does that prove?
That Austin was the number one draw in 1999.
Now, let us go to another point
This is a classic case of both guys having the same facts on the table and yet only one guy understanding them correctly. Dude, that is the whole point of this thread. Rock was feuding with the likes of Gunn because there was no vacancy at the top. Austin was feuding with McMahon and held the WWF Championship by the end of the feud. HHH was being groomed as this heel who was obsessed with the title and it was clear that he was going to be the next top heel of the company. What better way to make a guy the top heel other than to have him feud with the popular face World Champion at that point?
Now whom did that leave Rock to feud with? Undertaker was taking a hiatus, Kane was a face, Foley was a face and the likes of Angle and Jericho were at that point even further down the card than Gunn. If Austin would have stayed THAT is what would have happened to The Rock. If there had not been a vacancy at the top Rock would have not ascended the next level so soon and by the time he would have ascended the next level there is no saying that he would have been as hot as he had been during the summer of 1999.
You are an idiot if you think Austin never gave Rocky the rub. A rub isn't just given by wins and losses. Rock and Austin frequently teamed up together in 1999 which made it seem that both guys were on the same level. Rock had been a main event heel upto that point and while he was still very popular, that move made him seem credible as well.
Austin may have won at Mania 17 but he did it in a cowardly heelish fashion that made it look as he would have never been able to beat The Rock had it been a clean fight. If that is not giving a rub, then I do not know what is. Do you also think Bret Hart did not give Austin a rub at Mania 13 just because he won? Answer carefully because this question will go a long way in determining your intellect.
As for the part of the newspaper report, let me say this. It was mostly a speculation. And to think logically, even if Austin had stayed, he would not have turned heel till at least the summer of 2000. Why? Because it was clear that WWE were pushing HHH as the top heel and if Austin would have turned heel, that would have meant that HHH would not have been able to succeed in that role because Austin would have clearly been the top heel. WWF was much too smart to plan that way.
That would have only meant one thing, and that was for Rock to be the second biggest babyface behind Austin. Rock would have become the top face, say around SummerSlam 2000 but who knows how hot he would have been then and by extension that would have affected his career.
I guess most of the ******s are not going to read anything past that first paragraph but here goes nothing at trying to hammer some sense into them.
First we have the Wrestling Observer Newsletter award issue:
So now we have some proof that Austin did indeed win the award in 1999 and not Rock. But what about these other lists that posters have posted here claiming that as proof that Rock was indeed a bigger draw than Austin in 1999? Well, let us have a look at them
The bolded part clearly proves that the list has not taken into account the amount a wrestler has drawn in front of smaller audiences. As the WON award proves Austin was king if you take into account both big and small crowds.
And look this link agrees with me as well.
This says that Rock headlined most shows that drew 10,000+ crowds. But if you look at the cards in 1999 you will see that Austin headlined most shows. That proves again that Austin was the bigger draw when you take everything into the equation. This was an article that was written when Rock was returning earlier this year and it highlighted all of Rock's achievements. Yet it says nowhere that Rock was the biggest draw in 1999. So, what does that prove?
That Austin was the number one draw in 1999.
Now, let us go to another point
Austin v McMahon was an awesome storyline, one of my favourite feuds ever. But KB, answer me this, whilst Austin was feuding with McMahon and fighting for the WWF Title, why was Rock becoming just as popular when only feuding with Billy Gunn, British Bulldog, and Al Snow? Your argument is that Rock wouldn't of become as big if Austin was around, yet The Rock was becoming huge whilst having mid-card feuds, whilst Austin was pushed as the face of the WWF by Vince. and main eventing almost every PPV.
I look forward to your reply
This is a classic case of both guys having the same facts on the table and yet only one guy understanding them correctly. Dude, that is the whole point of this thread. Rock was feuding with the likes of Gunn because there was no vacancy at the top. Austin was feuding with McMahon and held the WWF Championship by the end of the feud. HHH was being groomed as this heel who was obsessed with the title and it was clear that he was going to be the next top heel of the company. What better way to make a guy the top heel other than to have him feud with the popular face World Champion at that point?
Now whom did that leave Rock to feud with? Undertaker was taking a hiatus, Kane was a face, Foley was a face and the likes of Angle and Jericho were at that point even further down the card than Gunn. If Austin would have stayed THAT is what would have happened to The Rock. If there had not been a vacancy at the top Rock would have not ascended the next level so soon and by the time he would have ascended the next level there is no saying that he would have been as hot as he had been during the summer of 1999.
You are an idiot if you think Austin never gave Rocky the rub. A rub isn't just given by wins and losses. Rock and Austin frequently teamed up together in 1999 which made it seem that both guys were on the same level. Rock had been a main event heel upto that point and while he was still very popular, that move made him seem credible as well.
Austin may have won at Mania 17 but he did it in a cowardly heelish fashion that made it look as he would have never been able to beat The Rock had it been a clean fight. If that is not giving a rub, then I do not know what is. Do you also think Bret Hart did not give Austin a rub at Mania 13 just because he won? Answer carefully because this question will go a long way in determining your intellect.
As for the part of the newspaper report, let me say this. It was mostly a speculation. And to think logically, even if Austin had stayed, he would not have turned heel till at least the summer of 2000. Why? Because it was clear that WWE were pushing HHH as the top heel and if Austin would have turned heel, that would have meant that HHH would not have been able to succeed in that role because Austin would have clearly been the top heel. WWF was much too smart to plan that way.
That would have only meant one thing, and that was for Rock to be the second biggest babyface behind Austin. Rock would have become the top face, say around SummerSlam 2000 but who knows how hot he would have been then and by extension that would have affected his career.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Poll
