|
|
Post by cordless2016 on May 31, 2011 12:47:09 GMT -5
In his defense though he only held down career midcarders like Billy Gunn and Jeff Jarrett. and at that he didnt really hold them down.Vince had 3 options for Summerslam 99 HHH Gunn JJ HHH won out because of the outright hatred he was inspiring after destroying DX.Gunn got the KOTR but floundered......and JJ was never really in the running. as I said in the start of this thread JJ jumped ship because his pal promised him big things in WCW. Rumor has it that Austin still refused to put HHH over at SummerSlam and thats why Foley got the win. |
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on May 31, 2011 13:02:39 GMT -5
That's been proven to be false though. Apparently it's that the WWF wanted the title off Austin but the whole deal with Jesse Ventura was that he was going to be heel and raise Triple H's hand but the political backlash would have been too much, so they just put HHH over the next night.
|
|
|
|
Post by gordon on May 31, 2011 13:09:28 GMT -5
That's been proven to be false though. Apparently it's that the WWF wanted the title off Austin but the whole deal with Jesse Ventura was that he was going to be heel and raise Triple H's hand but the political backlash would have been too much, so they just put HHH over the next night. But if that's the case then why didn't Austin just lose to HHH the night after SummerSlam? Why the Foley title win? |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 15:27:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2011 13:30:39 GMT -5
That's been proven to be false though. Apparently it's that the WWF wanted the title off Austin but the whole deal with Jesse Ventura was that he was going to be heel and raise Triple H's hand but the political backlash would have been too much, so they just put HHH over the next night. But if that's the case then why didn't Austin just lose to HHH the night after SummerSlam? Why the Foley title win? Because Foley's the type of cat you can do a title exchange on free tv with. |
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on May 31, 2011 14:31:02 GMT -5
But if that's the case then why didn't Austin just lose to HHH the night after SummerSlam? Why the Foley title win? Because Foley's the type of cat you can do a title exchange on free tv with. Still sounds fishy to me. Foley winning was a nice "feel good" moment, but one-day title reigns are usually pointless and hurt a title's credibility. Austin could have easily pinned Foley at SummerSlam and lost to Hunter the next night on Raw. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 15:27:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2011 15:05:33 GMT -5
well Austin was losing eitherway.and he stayed around longer than he needed to to help get HHH over as a credible heel champ-including wrestling a match he shouldnt have done at No Mercy 99.
after Fully Loaded 99,they knew Austins neck was totally done and he NEEDED the op.he was in bits after FL99 and he didnt wrestle regularly again for WWF.he wrestled at SS99 then after he became worse didnt wrestle again on TV(just doing run ins)until No Mercy 99.
the question became not how or who he was losing it to, but how to build after Austin had gone to have surgery.
its been said Foley was selected to beat Austin then HHH to beat Foley as a way to preserve mystique and the ineveitable one on one the 2 would have.
of course HHH won after Rocks interference backfired at No Mercy 99 ...........and the plan was always HHH to be revealed as the culprit for Austins rundown.....and they would feud on Austins return.
they did and HHH won the feud(when he shouldnt have)
so no he didnt hold HHH down really.if HHH had of beat Austin clean at Summerslam 99 then what?it all worked out for the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on May 31, 2011 23:12:09 GMT -5
I think HHH did deserve to "win" the feud. Austin was hot as hell when he returned, and even though he lost that three stages of hell match, it still made them both look like equals and didn't hurt Austin at all. He still had all the momentum in the world going into his WM match w/ Rock.
Never said he held down HHH, but Hunter could have easily pinned either one of them during the match and Austin could have claimed that HHH didn't beat him one on one, which could have lead to HHH running Austin over w/ the car and they still could have feuded a year later. Just seems like the WWF had better options at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on May 31, 2011 23:14:01 GMT -5
Remember too that Triple H 'crippled' Austin after the SummerSlam match and then went over him at No Mercy in October.
|
|
|
|
Post by done on Jun 1, 2011 10:14:44 GMT -5
oh my god, if they brought in the hart foundation to 'execute' the nwo, that would've been way too perfect. oh man, Hart Foundation vs nWo would have been amazing. I love how theres so many stories regarding Owen/Davey/Neidhart's release. All of them interesting. And yeah, I'm sure a push for Neidhart would not have went anywhere anyway. Owen was promised a World Title run that never came about. If I'm not mistaken, he was told that he was going to take the title from HBK at I think the Rumble. Yeah they promised Owen, but Shawn backed out so they had to drop the plan which is really sad because it may of been Austin vs Owen at WM for the World title! My Storyline idea for the Owen and Austin Road to WM feud: Owen wins the World title for Shawn (clean win) Shawn gets a rematch at a PPV (no DQ) - Owen wins(with help from Austin, just like how Austin helped him win his second IC title) Owen attacks Austin the next night(or something like that) Owen(the following week) tells everyone why he attack Austin(because Owen wanted another clean win, Shawn comes out and has to face Austin the next week! Austin wins by DQ because of DX.Austin gets his match at No Way Out. Owen trys to injure Austin again (fake) but Austin gets out of it, then Owen attacks Austin for the rest of the match making it a no contest. then because of Owen's actions he has to face Austin at WM (with either Shawn or Shamrock as ref) Austin walks out with the title after a stunner! |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 15:27:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2011 11:20:51 GMT -5
Never said he held down HHH, but Hunter could have easily pinned either one of them during the match and Austin could have claimed that HHH didn't beat him one on one, which could have lead to HHH running Austin over w/ the car and they still could have feuded a year later. Just seems like the WWF had better options at the time. never said ya did man. I stand by what I said though-HHH shouldnt have won that feud. but there was heavy politics involved there.HHH went over because Austin was getting the title shot. |
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Jun 1, 2011 17:17:24 GMT -5
I could be wrong, but I always thought the reason Triple H won the feud with Austin was to help set up Austin's Wrestlemania heel turn. Cause it seemed like Austin couldn't beat Hunter and was having trouble finishing off The Rock until Vince interfered. Sorta like Austin would even align himself with "the devil" himself to get back on top.
|
|
|
|
Post by HugoOne on Jun 1, 2011 17:37:42 GMT -5
I agree 100%. I'm a huge Austin fan, but people seem to forget that Austin held grudges against Owen and Jeff, which is most likely a big reason as to why they never got a shot at the main event. Then in 2002, Austin refused to put over Brock Lesnar. After he refused to put over Lesnar, he requested a feud w/ Eddie Guerrero, but after hearing that Vince wanted him to put over Eddie, Austin refused and we all know how he walked out on the WWE soon after. I'm a big Austin fan, but he politiced backstage just as much as anybody else. It seems like The Rock and Mick Foley were the only two top stars to never have a problem w/ putting anybody over(atleast I've never heard of these two ever having a problem like that). Austin didn't refuse to put Brock over, period, he refused to put him over on Raw. He thought that that big of a match should have been saved for a PPV instead of just blowing it on a Raw. That I agree with but he's admitted that it wasn't his place to do say such things and that he was wrong in it. |
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Jun 1, 2011 21:46:37 GMT -5
I agree 100%. I'm a huge Austin fan, but people seem to forget that Austin held grudges against Owen and Jeff, which is most likely a big reason as to why they never got a shot at the main event. Then in 2002, Austin refused to put over Brock Lesnar. After he refused to put over Lesnar, he requested a feud w/ Eddie Guerrero, but after hearing that Vince wanted him to put over Eddie, Austin refused and we all know how he walked out on the WWE soon after. I'm a big Austin fan, but he politiced backstage just as much as anybody else. It seems like The Rock and Mick Foley were the only two top stars to never have a problem w/ putting anybody over(atleast I've never heard of these two ever having a problem like that). Austin didn't refuse to put Brock over, period, he refused to put him over on Raw. He thought that that big of a match should have been saved for a PPV instead of just blowing it on a Raw. That I agree with but he's admitted that it wasn't his place to do say such things and that he was wrong in it. Austin now says that he refused to put him over on Raw, but at the time, Austin was very paranoid about his spot in the company and was very selective about who he put over. It's funny how he says he requested a feud w/ Eddie Guerrero in 2002, but when asked to put him over, Austin refused. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 15:27:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2011 11:35:30 GMT -5
I could be wrong, but I always thought the reason Triple H won the feud with Austin was to help set up Austin's Wrestlemania heel turn. Cause it seemed like Austin couldn't beat Hunter and was having trouble finishing off The Rock until Vince interfered. Sorta like Austin would even align himself with "the devil" himself to get back on top. I think your right there man.I may have read that before someplace. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 15:27:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2011 11:48:07 GMT -5
I agree that Brock shouldnt have been put over Austin on Raw.it would have totally devalued the Austin character imo.
also the Austin vs Eddie feud puzzled me.didnt seem to fit at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Jun 2, 2011 22:29:13 GMT -5
I agree that Brock shouldnt have been put over Austin on Raw.it would have totally devalued the Austin character imo. also the Austin vs Eddie feud puzzled me.didnt seem to fit at all. I agree that the Austin/Eddie feud made little sense at the time, given that Eddie was still a returning mid-carder at the time. But a win over Austin, even though it probably would have been dirty, would have done wonders for Eddie. While I agree that an Austin/Lesnar match should have been built up for a PPV, having him loose on Raw wouldn't have devalued the Austin character at all IMO. I believe that Austin was still feuding w/ Flair at the time, who had already cost Austin some matches, so Flair could have cost Austin this match as well. This way, Austin doesn't look weak and Lesnar still gets the win over him. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 15:27:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2011 10:54:36 GMT -5
I agree that Brock shouldnt have been put over Austin on Raw.it would have totally devalued the Austin character imo. also the Austin vs Eddie feud puzzled me.didnt seem to fit at all. I agree that the Austin/Eddie feud made little sense at the time, given that Eddie was still a returning mid-carder at the time. But a win over Austin, even though it probably would have been dirty, would have done wonders for Eddie. While I agree that an Austin/Lesnar match should have been built up for a PPV, having him loose on Raw wouldn't have devalued the Austin character at all IMO. I believe that Austin was still feuding w/ Flair at the time, who had already cost Austin some matches, so Flair could have cost Austin this match as well. This way, Austin doesn't look weak and Lesnar still gets the win over him. well yeah he it had went this way-no problem.a distraction from Flair costing Austin the match would have been ok. Brock gets the W and the Austin/Flair feud heats up.in 2002 they could have had a great match. However I wouldnt have liked Flair to physically interfere though......that would have been pointless IMO as Brock wouldnt have benefited. |
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Jun 3, 2011 11:19:52 GMT -5
I'd have booked it where Flair only came down and distracted Austin. No physical interferance, just him coming down to ringside and distracting Austin long enough for Lesnar to take control of the match.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Jun 3, 2011 11:52:26 GMT -5
I still have to agree with Austin in principle. Walking out was not the right course of action, but the first Stone Cold vs. Brock match should have at least been announced a week ahead of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sexy Psychotic on Jun 3, 2011 11:57:34 GMT -5
I agree that Brock shouldnt have been put over Austin on Raw.it would have totally devalued the Austin character imo. also the Austin vs Eddie feud puzzled me.didnt seem to fit at all. I agree that the Austin/Eddie feud made little sense at the time, given that Eddie was still a returning mid-carder at the time. But a win over Austin, even though it probably would have been dirty, would have done wonders for Eddie. While I agree that an Austin/Lesnar match should have been built up for a PPV, having him loose on Raw wouldn't have devalued the Austin character at all IMO. I believe that Austin was still feuding w/ Flair at the time, who had already cost Austin some matches, so Flair could have cost Austin this match as well. This way, Austin doesn't look weak and Lesnar still gets the win over him. I thought the reason Austin was so pissed was because they wanted Lesnar to win clean over Austin, no distraction or anything. |
|
+nod+of+approval.gif)
