the bigger draw always goes over.
I'm sorry, PG, I'm replying to you specifically but I'm saying this to
EVERYONE who believes in this exact quote - which, from near as I can tell is every single person talking in this thread, backing Steve Austin.
I'm so sick and tired of hearing the same useless chatter.
"Austin will win because he's more over",
"Austin can't lose because he's the bigger draw". Please stop, it's one of the worst arguments - up there with the likes of
"Hogan can't win a ladder match, because he can't climb properly".
Steve Austin did
not go undefeated in the WWF, as their top draw. And need I remind everyone, this Tournament isn't even produced under the WWF umbrella. Now then, just right quick to end the naive-ness of
"the bigger draw gets the win" - if this were the case, none of the matches would mean crap, because Hulk Hogan would win every year, every match, regardless of against who, or regarding what. End. of. Discussion.
Now then, hoping that we've by-passed playing naive on this issue, I'd like to move into the second part of this; which is Steve Austin barely accomplished
ANYTHING in any other Company than the WWF.
If the guy is so great, then how is it that he couldn't take command of his career and GET noticed anywhere other than the WWF - only after, mind you, he was handed a different gimmick than the first one he started out with? (heh - to think the "Ringmaster" is winning right now is utterly embarrassing)
He held the US title an impressive 240 days, but turned that to shit by being squashed by Jim Duggan in 35 seconds. Now, so people don't assume I'm just trying to bury him without giving him credit - he also had a pair of TV title reigns that went (combined) over a year. (431 days, to be exact) Austin was also the last guy to hold the belt beyond a 225 day mark. However, so we aren't giving him
too much credit - it deserves to be said that title was held, on average, by anyone around this time - between 100-300 days. So, while it's impressive regardless, he wasn't exactly the ONLY person doing this type of thing, either.
Do I even need to bother with his ECW stint? I'm sure someone will care, so I might as well.. oh, wait, that's right - he didn't win shit in ECW. A Company that is considered "3rd largest out of the big 3" during that time, and all he did was play the guy chasing the victory, but never actually achieved it.
Finally, you have his incredible legendary career with the WWF - which, because that is all people are looking at I won't bother running down. The fact remains, however, simply because he was the best draw in one Company - does not make him the best thing in every Company he's ever been with.
Sting, on the other hand, can safely and firmly say he has been a top draw everywhere he's ever gone that's been a big enough promotion. NWA, WCW, TNA. He's been the World Champion in all of those places. He's been one of, if not THE, guy on top - everywhere.
Sting is nothing but put-over fodder to someone of Austin's juggernaut of a WWE STONE COLD CAREER in his prime. Same as he was for Goldberg.
What. The. Hell. Does any of this mean? Are you trying to tell me that someone like Sting would be nothing more than "fed", as some random jobber; to a guy of WWF-Steve Austin's caliber? Please tell me you aren't serious.
Look, BS can switch crap up all he wants and I'm fine with him thinking it's smart on his part; but let's get real for a moment. Heel Hogan, Face Hogan - Sting pinned HOGAN, regardless of which character he was - multiple times, most cleanly.
If someone is put over Hogan, cleanly, I highly doubt they're "fodder" to Steve Austin. And once again - this IS NOT a WWF produced tournament. So simply because the guy was amazing
there, does not mean shit
HERE.
Bottom line, Austin in his prime was unbeatable.
I'm begging you to research his ppv record. Believe me, he's anything but "unbeatable". Overrated is the word I'd use most, but most of his fans are so far up his backside I doubt they could see anything but the massive amount of crap surrounding their hero.
Oh, and to re-touch base on the whole "he only lost unfairly to bad guys because of interference".. seriously? What, would you rather the "bad guys" won fairly over the "good guy", making the "good guy" look completely worthless? OF COURSE NOT..
It's the entire purpose of Wrestling for a "heel" to win unfairly. That doesn't mean they don't still win though. Sting can "win" this match, fairly or unfairly. Austin has lost both ways, to both good and bad guys. It really does not make that much of a difference.
To say Austin is unbeatable is more than naive, and I'm trying hard to refrain from calling anyone stupid because that does no good, but the statement "Austin is unbeatable" is really pushing the envelope regardless how much - or less - you have full mental capabilities.
So, to end everything - PG, it wasn't meant against you personally, but I just finally got too sick of seeing people post stuff like this; and trust me, you haven't been the only one.