Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
When Hogan, HHH, Cena were/are on top of the roster they received a lot of hate. Yet when Rock, Austin, Savage, Flair, Sting had that spot there wasn't the same kind of hate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,365 Posts
everyone got hate in the IWC , let's leave it at that ..

as for the casuals , it's probably because of the entertainment value

hogan in 80's was loveable , but once fans grew up from the superhero thing , they didn't like him anymore and started booing him ..

now that keyfabe is dead , and after they've had a whole era based in cutting edge angles and shock value , they are trying to recycle hogan's gimmick , that would not work in a time were keyfabe is dead , so it's obvious that people are not gonna click with that

also , kevin nash had interesting point about goldberg , is that they made him "the new york yankees" .. people hate the guy that always win
it's common sense 101

that's why
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts
Rock and Austin had haters too..IWC have always been complainers. I remember reading things like Rock uses the same old catchphrases every week and that Austin's rebel gimmick was getting old (that's what the IWC thought back in 2001-2002)

regarding the casuals Rocky got booed a lot by the audience during 2003 because he was considered a sellout.
Austin was always pretty much cheered.



Dunno about Savage.
 

·
Harvester of Sorrow
Joined
·
12,027 Posts
I think every main event wrestler get's hate by the IWC. IN regards to Hogan, HHH and Cena. They get hated on mostly because A)Politics, Hogan was big into the politics and whenever people talk HHH they always being up his marriage to Steph or the fact that he was in the Kliq, B)They tend to go over a lot, and people considering it burying stars. Although this is pretty ridiculous because pretty much ever major babyface is like that. Except maybe Mick Foley, and you could make an exception for The Rock as well, but apparently some people regard him owning people on the mic as burying stars too so I don't know. Or C) They're old, corny and stale. Hogan is pretty much living in his shadow these days, trying to stay relevant but some people are just sick of him now and want him to retire for good, HHH is pretty much at that part of his career where there's nothing much else for him now. This new COO think is actually good because it provided him with some new material but my point being, like Hogan, HHH has been going for quite some time now. Has been in the Main Event for over 10 years and some people are just getting tired of it. Finally with Cena, his character is just corny and the superman thing dosen't work as well as it used to so people are just tired of it now. SO yeah that's why they get so much hate.

As for Rock, Austin and Savage. Well they haven't been active in a long time so they've mananaged to avoid all that and stay under people's radar, but you do tend to get the odd hateful comments on here. Like Stone Cold getting hated on for never making any new stars, or The Rock because he left for Hollywood. Ao nobody really get's an easy time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,697 Posts
Like dude said, rock and savage put people over. The most random of people at that. They didn't act like a win over them was the end all be all.
 

·
Asuka
Joined
·
96,241 Posts
Rock has a lot of haters online, for various reasons. Not sure why he came up. Austin is damn near impossible to hate because he's the greatest performer in wrestling history. Those that do are just trying to rebel. Savage never stayed on too long like Hogan, so that's probably why he never got a lot of hate. Not to mention he's a thousand times better than Hogan. Flair, like Austin is pretty damn hard to hate because he was so epic, even if he did wear out his welcome. I don't know about Sting but he was never in WWE, so that probably has a lot to do with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,393 Posts
Rock has a lot of haters online, for various reasons. Not sure why he came up. Austin is damn near impossible to hate because he's the greatest performer in wrestling history. Those that do are just trying to rebel. Savage never stayed on too long like Hogan, so that's probably why he never got a lot of hate. Not to mention he's a thousand times better than Hogan. Flair, like Austin is pretty damn hard to hate because he was so epic, even if he did wear out his welcome. I don't know about Sting but he was never in WWE, so that probably has a lot to do with it.
Couldn't disagree more about the Austin comment. Take away the expensive backstage stunts WWE ran with him, and he is left with nothing but a small bag of catch phrases (several of which did little more than replace other ones, saying the exact same thing), and a lackluster/redundant in-ring moveset. (In his defense, he did wrestle with bad knees for a good while)

I'm not saying he's garbage. Of course he was entertaining. . .mainly during the expensive stunts or pre-recorded shoots (like Austin/McMahon in the hospital), but seriously. . .best performer ever? lmfao. . gimmie a "Hell no".

I didn't enjoy Flair at all when he was in the WWE either. He was also very redundant on the mic, and not very interesting in the ring whatsoever. Back during his glory days he was cool, but WWE? No.

Agreed with the point about Savage though. He was good when he was around, and didn't stick around past his prime. There's no much to hate since when he delivered the goods, he was almost always interesting. Likewise for The Rock, though his comeback here may change that. Sorta like Jordan and Hakeem's comebacks diminishing their legacies somewhat.
 

·
FEED ME LESS!
Joined
·
3,835 Posts
Couldn't disagree more about the Austin comment. Take away the expensive backstage stunts WWE ran with him, and he is left with nothing but a small bag of catch phrases (several of which did little more than replace other ones, saying the exact same thing), and a lackluster/redundant in-ring moveset. (In his defense, he did wrestle with bad knees for a good while)

I'm not saying he's garbage. Of course he was entertaining. . .mainly during the expensive stunts or pre-recorded shoots (like Austin/McMahon in the hospital), but seriously. . .best performer ever? lmfao. . gimmie a "Hell no".

I didn't enjoy Flair at all when he was in the WWE either. He was also very redundant on the mic, and not very interesting in the ring whatsoever. Back during his glory days he was cool, but WWE? No.

Agreed with the point about Savage though. He was good when he was around, and didn't stick around past his prime. There's no much to hate since when he delivered the goods, he was almost always interesting. Likewise for The Rock, though his comeback here may change that. Sorta like Jordan and Hakeem's comebacks diminishing their legacies somewhat.
now im going to disagree with you sir.

austin was in a league of his own, on one touched him.


rock was the one with a bunch of one liners he ran with forever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
692 Posts
now im going to disagree with you sir.

austin was in a league of his own, on one touched him.


rock was the one with a bunch of one liners he ran with forever.
lol Rock was better on the mic than Austin could ever dream of
 

·
Arrive Post Leave
Joined
·
501 Posts
Couldn't disagree more about the Austin comment. Take away the expensive backstage stunts WWE ran with him, and he is left with nothing but a small bag of catch phrases (several of which did little more than replace other ones, saying the exact same thing), and a lackluster/redundant in-ring moveset. (In his defense, he did wrestle with bad knees for a good while)

I'm not saying he's garbage. Of course he was entertaining. . .mainly during the expensive stunts or pre-recorded shoots (like Austin/McMahon in the hospital), but seriously. . .best performer ever? lmfao. . gimmie a "Hell no".

I didn't enjoy Flair at all when he was in the WWE either. He was also very redundant on the mic, and not very interesting in the ring whatsoever. Back during his glory days he was cool, but WWE? No.

Agreed with the point about Savage though. He was good when he was around, and didn't stick around past his prime. There's no much to hate since when he delivered the goods, he was almost always interesting. Likewise for The Rock, though his comeback here may change that. Sorta like Jordan and Hakeem's comebacks diminishing their legacies somewhat.
Austin was the reason I and most other people at the time tuned in to see raw just to find out what crazy stuff he was doing to do next , he was massively over with the crowed because he made his character so believable, austin earned those expensive stunts because he was able to get himself over.

as for move set , most people arnt that bothered with lots of tecnical moves , people just want to see the the flashy signature moves , the peoples elbow , the stunner , spear and so on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,393 Posts
now im going to disagree with you sir.

austin was in a league of his own, on one touched him.


rock was the one with a bunch of one liners he ran with forever.
The Rock had a lot more fleshed out segments (funny, intelligent, stuff with depth) where he didn't fill them up with one-liners or oversold intimidation tactics for pops.

Almost all of Austin's segments were a blur to me since they were so similar. Comes out, acts intimidating, uses his handful of catch phrases, gets a pop usually after a stunner, music hits, drinks beer during an excessively lengthy celebration segment, commercial. He rarely said very much that was significant or memorable. Go fetch me a memorable Austin promo that does not involve him acting intimidating or an expensive stunt WWE catered for him. His character was built around being over as an intimidating person. You know, one where he actually said something funny or witty. He rarely had a good argument with anyone, he rarely came off as logical or humorous (or interesting). He was a one-dimensional character who did little but act intimidating and benefit from expensive WWE stunts during his prime.

I also found him to be redundant in the ring. He was about as diverse as John Cena is now. Maybe even less so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,393 Posts
Austin was the reason I and most other people at the time tuned in to see raw just to find out what crazy stuff he was doing to do next , he was massively over with the crowed because he made his character so believable, austin earned those expensive stunts because he was able to get himself over.

as for move set , most people arnt that bothered with lots of tecnical moves , people just want to see the the flashy signature moves , the peoples elbow , the stunner , spear and so on.
I can believe that. Like I said, Austin's main draw (imo), was the crazy stunts WWE spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on to keep him over. But really, aside from those? He was boring as hell to me.

The moves thing. . .yeah, you don't need tons of spot moves, but his filler moveset was crap too. Lou Thesz press, mudhole stomps, "jaw jacking" and not much else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,365 Posts
now im going to disagree with you sir.

austin was in a league of his own, on one touched him.


rock was the one with a bunch of one liners he ran with forever.
you gotta admit .. austin had the same amount of catchphrases rock had

and hey i'm not saying that's a bad thing , i like austin

but to say that he didn't have one liners , his promos over the last 10 year are the same round apple

"WHAT .. YOU WANNA DO THIS .. WHAT .. AND DO THAT .. WHAT .. YOU EXPECT ME TO SIT HERE AND LISTEN .. WHAT .. YOU WANT STONE COD STEVE AUSTIN TO OPEN UP A CAN OF WHOOP ASS ON THAT SOB GIMME A HELL YEAH ? AND THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE CAUSE STONE COLD SAID SO"

I'm not saying he is bad , austin was one of the GOAT in terms of mic work , but do not act like he doesn't use catchphrases or repeats the same stuff cause that couldn't be farther than the truth
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,833 Posts
Rock,Austin aren't hated because they're attitude era stars who never competed in WWE after 2004. Even now, people are somewhat starting to hate the rock(at least on this forum) and are bringing up reasons that could easily have been reasons 4-5 years ago too,but seems like they're only bringing it up because he's gonna somewhat be apart of this era.
 

·
Asuka
Joined
·
96,241 Posts
Couldn't disagree more about the Austin comment. Take away the expensive backstage stunts WWE ran with him, and he is left with nothing but a small bag of catch phrases (several of which did little more than replace other ones, saying the exact same thing), and a lackluster/redundant in-ring moveset. (In his defense, he did wrestle with bad knees for a good while)

I'm not saying he's garbage. Of course he was entertaining. . .mainly during the expensive stunts or pre-recorded shoots (like Austin/McMahon in the hospital), but seriously. . .best performer ever? lmfao. . gimmie a "Hell no".
You could play that game with anybody in the history of wrestling. Take this away from so and so and they become.....whatever. How far would Hogan have gotten if he was given Duke The Dumpster Droeses gimmick? You can't go around simplifying people like that. Austin may have had a cheap formula (to you), but WWE was profitable beyond belief during his run and for my money he's easily more entertaining than anybody's ever been, and he combined the package of mic skills, charisma, gimmick, marketability and wrestling ability better than anybody, so I'm gonna call him the best ever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,358 Posts
It is true that Austin was just as catchphrase heavy as The Rock. Personally, I dont care how many they had and I felt that people bitch about that in mic skills way too much. Delivery is always key. Something that both men excelled in.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top