Austin's First Reign
True, Austin came into his reign at a breakneck pace, and was a viable contender. But he won the title from a Shawn Michaels that was already suffering from a crippling back injury. This would Shawn's last match until 2002, and it's pretty nice that he came back, because I don't think any WWE fan wanted the winded, somewhat bloated Shawn Michaels that was present at Wrestlemania 14. I argue that this was the worst incarnation of Shawn Michaels, in terms of pure talent, that you'll ever find. It showed just how injured he was. Steve didn't beat HBK... He beat a corpsed shell of the man.
Where's the steadfastness with which you cling to kayfabe in this post? What the fuck does Shawn Michaels being in poor health have to do with the character he portrayed at this point in his career? This was the same man who had, in the previous year, beat The British Bulldog for the European Championship in England and who then beat Bret Hart for the WWF Championship in Canada. Oh, but I guess you're going to use what went on backstage to your advantage here as well and argue that Michaels politicked for those belts, and that he really didn't deserve them.
Kayfabe, this was the strongest Michaels had ever been in his career. So, I would say that Austin taking the title off of him, FOR HIS FIRST REIGN, was pretty fucking impressive.
He then went on to wrestle Dude Love twice on pay per view. He wrestled the least formidable of Mick Foley's possible four incarnations, and even then struggled at times to handle Foley. Then, at the next pay per view, he went on to lose to Kane in a first blood match.
This reign was much more interesting for the tension that was building between Austin and McMahon. Why are you ignoring this?
Austin's Second Reign
Austin beat Kane clean the next night on Raw. Ok, that was impressive, I'll grant that. From there, he did not defend his title at Fully Loaded pay per view. The Undertaker won the WWE tag titles for he and Austin. Woo.
He then went on to pin The Undertaker clean at Summerslam. Ok, impressive, to an extent. This was not a kayfabe strong version of The Undertaker. No matter which way you slice it, Taker's kayfabe height was never with the ministry, nor when he was answering to a higher power. The only two versions of a kayfabe strong Undertaker that I'll accept are his run from 1990-1992, or his current form. More on that later. Anyway, there's no way I'm giving this win half the credit most of the people that will vote for Austin would. That then leads us to the September pay per view, in which he was pinned by The Undertaker and Kane... Somehow...
All right, so, essentially, you have defined what you consider to be The Undertaker's kayfabe primes, and then you treat these opinions as facts. Could it be that, maybe, just maybe, the reason The Undertaker seemed so weak in this interregnum was because there were people that were simply better than him?
Here's how I see it: you don't like Austin, so, you treat The Undertaker losing to Austin as a criterion to judge whether or not The Undertaker was weak at this point in his career. Since he did lost to Austin, you do consider this to be a weak point in his career. But, then you use this point again to argue why this title reign is overrated. This is circular reasoning at its best. You already alluded to Plato in a previous post of yours, so I'm assuming that you've taken an Intro. to Philosophy course. Shouldn't you know about such simple methods of reasoning?
We then go on to a period where Austin does a big fat pile of nothing. He referee'd a match, he got beat by Mankind, which kinda puts a dent into his wins against a weaker Dude Love, and he beat a Kayfabe-weak Undertaker in a buried alive match. Oh, and Kane helped him win... For some reason...
Then he has a steel cage match with Vince. Pardon me for being underwhelmed. And this leads us to:
So, I take it that you didn't like his feud with Vince throughout the late 1990s? I think there are millions of people that would disagree with you on the quality of this feud.
Austin's Third Reign
Austin beat a Rock that was nowhere near ready for the spotlight yet, and was nowhere the kayfabe height of where he would be. When you look at it, it's pretty laughable, really. The Rock was over, but he surely wasn't main event, in my mind. At this point, The Rock found himself in a place where Chris Jericho usually finds himself before his return; over, yet not really ready to take the step to full time main eventer. That would come later, but as for now, this man was certainly not ready for the spotlight. He then beat The Rock at the next pay per view. Again, I'm not giving this match half of the credit that Austin supporters will. the Rock was not ready yet, and it was evident. We then go to Over The Edge, where Austin lost the title to The Undertaker. He then lost a ladder match to Shane and Vince. We then go to
The only thing laughable thing is how much you discount The Rock. Were you not watching wrestling during this time? Did you not see how much of a heat machine The Rock was? The Rock was more then ready to take a hold of the brass ring at this point. But, I guess this is just you trying to make it seem reasonable that this title reign should be overrated. Too bad that there are actually people here who watched the WWF at this point in time.
Austin's Fourth Reign
Beat a still kayfabe weaker version of The Undertaker. He would then lose it a month later, to Mankind, again getting pinned cleanly by Mankind. Hey, it could have been worse. Remember, Chyna was the number one contender for the longest of times. And that should speak volumes for the WWE's main event scene at this point. He then went on to become a special enforcer in a title match, and lost to an actually kayfabe weak (at least compared to what he'd become) Trips. Oh, and then he got hit by a car.
Well, since I actually am consistent in my reasoning, unlike you, I won't argue with you on this one. But, how does it make you look when you discount Austin's first title reign by talking about Michaels' health while totally ignoring Austin's health at this time? I'll let everyone else decide on that one.
So, he left for about a year, and believe it or not... The WWE thrived without him. Yes, it actually got... Better? Yes, The WWE got better with Austin's abscence, at least from a talent and storyline aspect. So he comes back and beats up some fat guy, almost kills Triple H (Even his car crashes were kayfabe weak. Trips was back a month later. Randy Orton's punt did more damage.) He lost a six man HIAC, and was the one to get pinned. He won a Royal Rumble, which was his specialty, lost to Trips, and then went on to
Yeah, things did manage to stay strong, since Austin's job of bringing the WWF out of the shitter was complete.
Austin's Fifth Title Reign
And I'll actually give him credit, because he beat the Rock at his kayfabe height. He then went on to have a tag team match with Trips against Kane and The Undertaker. He lost a handicap match, with Trips as a partner, against The Undertaker, beat the absolute weakest form of The Undertaker possible, and beat two mid carders at this point in Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit, in a match they caried. He lost by disqualification to Kurt Angle, and then lost to Angle by submission at Unforgiven. This leads to
Nothing much to say here...I'm actually getting kind of tired going through such a shit post. This all goes back to my theory that it takes longer to undo lies than to tell them.
Austin's Sixth Title Reign
He beat Kurt Angle. Impressive, perhaps, but the fact of the matter is that this wasn't Kurt Angle at his best right now. But that's neither here nor there. He then beat Angle and RVD in a triple threat match, in which these two weren't close to their eventual kayfabe height. His team lost a Survivor Series Match, and then, to close out his final reign, he lost to a Chris Jericho that wasn't at kayfabe peak yet.
When was Kurt Angle at his best then? This is just laughable, man. It looks like you have done nothing but look up PPV results and explained away all of Austin's wins by saying that everyone he faced wasn't in their prime at the time.
Yes, Austin's reigns sold merchandise. But they were vastly overrated, mixed with tag matches and periods of time where he was used as a "special enforcer", or some crap like that. The only names I spot on here that he beat at their kayfabe peak were Kane and the Rock. So for reigns that have people saying he's one of the best champions, I somewhat scoff.
No one really gives a fuck if you scoff, as people would actually have to think that what you had to say carries weight.
I'll actually disagree with Ricky here and say that this post was a steaming pile of dog poo. And, yeah, I am going to be harsh about it, because I can't fucking stand it when people lie so damn much and then expect the utmost respect when someone calls them out on it.
So, there you go, I've stepped up to the plate. You probably won't though. All I'll hear is more shit about how I'm so stuck-up and I think my opinion carries so much weight around here. But, the truth is: a) I only act stuck up when people try to bullshit their way through an argument; b) I don't have an opinion in areas where cold, hard facts exist.
There you go...I just replied to what you had to say.