Paid Members CleetusVanDamme Posted February 9, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 9, 2011 Ok, say we're back in March 2003, and Rock's decided that he's going to stick around, and Austin's had some kind of super neck surgery, it's not a miracle mind, but he's still able to perform at, say, early 2002 level. What happens?. Â Â Does business still keep going into a major downturn throughout the decade?. It was going down long before they left anyway, but is there anything they could have done to stop it, being the two biggest stars left at the time?. Â Â Does them sticking around halt the progress of the 3 biggest stars they've built since then (Orton, Cena, and Batista), or does Rock and Austin being there to help make them put them up another level?. Â Â What else was there for them to do?. Being honest, I was fucking sick of Stone Cold by 2002, but if he'd stuck around just 1 month longer we could have had Austin vs Goldberg, that would've been quality, no doubt. I could go on all night listing Rock matches I'd have loved to see since. Â Â Would the style of product have changed since then?. Or would we still be stuck in the "Attitude-Lite" style of 02-03?. Â Â Would Ernest Miller have stuck around if he'd had the Rock to work with, rather than follow in his footsteps and leaving to become a Hollywood megastar!?. Â Â How would they have done with the Wellness Policy?. Â Just how hated would they be on "the net" by now?. Â Â Shit like that..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt360 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Nobody can say for certain, but I like to think if Austin had stuck around, we wouldn't have the PG product of WWE that we have today, heaven's forbid Austin giving a big ol' thumbs up before he delivers those stunners we all love so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted February 9, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 9, 2011 Austin could have done a PG character, no bother. He was a comedy character in his final days anyway, and although there was swearing, it isnt necessarily what made him funny character. The "What?" gimmick was over in 2002. He'd have had to evolve anyway. His character in 2011 wouldnt be what it was then. 15 years straight of the same "Stone Cold" character wouldn't have worked to well. I wasn't enjoying to much of what he did in his final year of wrestling to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Fox Piss Posted February 10, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 10, 2011 I think Brock was a bigger loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshC Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Austin giving a big ol' thumbs up before he delivers those stunners This would be amazing! He'd be like a bad ass Paul McCartney! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Fatty Facesitter Posted February 10, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 10, 2011 In the case of Orton, Cena and Batista, I think with guys like Rock and Austin to put them over they'd have actually gotten over more quickly. The key would've been how they utilized Rock and Austin to the point where they weren't still the sole focus of the product. They'd have served the company well in a HBK style roll, always being around the main events but never really needing the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawz Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Guys like Cena and Batista would never of made WWE's main event picture if quality like Austin and Rock stayed around. These days anyone can get a run with the world title and the main event players are mediocre. Â It would of been amazing to see Austin, Rock, HHH, HBK, Brock, Angle as a six way main event scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted February 10, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 10, 2011 Cena was being groomed to be the WWE's next big thing while Austin and The Rock were still in the WWE. Cena would definitely have made it. And Batista wasnt in WWE's plans to main event yet until they suddenly realised the people thought he was the business when he pretended to turn on Triple H. Cena and Batista were the types of wrestling the WWF built the company on the back of in the 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Cena was being groomed to be the WWE's next big thing while Austin and The Rock were still in the WWE. Cena would definitely have made it. And Batista wasnt in WWE's plans to main event yet until they suddenly realised the people thought he was the business when he pretended to turn on Triple H. Cena and Batista were the types of wrestling the WWF built the company on the back of in the 80s. Well yeah, but you're responding to a fella that makes ajmcstyles' opinion of John Cena look balanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhenom Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I suppose it would have been the same as The Undertaker, Triple H and Shawn Michaels still being major parts of the roster in the mid 2000s and beyond. It would have been fine, if Rock kept his Hollywood 2003 character going, and they wasn't always in the main title picture. They needed new stars as well anyway, which is what we got with Cena, Lesnar, Batista, JBL etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Interesting one. Â First thing I thought was - Cena would have been a heel for most of the last 5 years, either by never turning face or by turning back when all the boos started. I don't think Edge would have had as many title runs, or CM Punk for that matter. Â TNA would have got more disgruntled midcarders - Jericho, Benoit possibly, Rey Mysterio. Benoit in particular could have helped TNA a lot if he and Angle had both been there in the mid-90s, plus he could have come off the HGH and Testosterone and possibly not killed his family. Â On the larger business side, I reckon that the WWE wouldn't have shed so many viewers - I think WWE's business took a big hit once those two had left, lost a lot of casual viewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members neil's bitch Posted February 10, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 10, 2011 I think Brock was a bigger loss. i think in the long term you're correct (Brock could of been huge i think by now), but in the overall term he was there, i dont think it matters to much. He was an awesome wrestler, although i know alot of people dont have a clue who he is as he wasnt around that long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexy Dad Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I think an extensive Hollywood Rock vs Shawn Michaels feud in 2003 would have potentially reboosted the ratings and grab the attention of attitude era fans who were disillusioned with the invasion. Two huge names who never feuded during Rock's rise to the top would have produced tremendous matches. A Stone Cold vs HBK main event at Wrestlemania 20 with a build up based on Austin taking Michael's career away from him at Wrestlemania 14 would have grabbed a lot more attention than the rise to the top of Guerrero and Benoit, despite their deserved title reigns it wasn't something the casual fan would come running for. I think some great feuds could have came out of Rock and Austin staying and I'm sure that by early 2005 all options may have become a little exhausted so Cena, Batista and Orton would have still risen but guys such as Benoit, Eddie and Jericho wouldn't have. If Rock was still making the occasional return in the current day, I really think that him and Punk jousting on the mic would have been fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 It wouldn't have made any difference in the long run. It's a moot point anyway, if Rock had been the type to stick around in WWE he wouldn't have been the massive star that he was, and if Austin had been the type to put up with bad booking without saying something he wouldn't have been the massive star that he was. Â UFC would have still taken off in 2005 and taken adult fans away from WWE and they'd still have gone in the PG direction, regardless of what any of the wrestlers thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vealster Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I think an extensive Hollywood Rock vs Shawn Michaels feud in 2003 would have potentially reboosted the ratings and grab the attention of attitude era fans who were disillusioned with the invasion. Two huge names who never feuded during Rock's rise to the top would have produced tremendous matches. A Stone Cold vs HBK main event at Wrestlemania 20 with a build up based on Austin taking Michael's career away from him at Wrestlemania 14 would have grabbed a lot more attention than the rise to the top of Guerrero and Benoit, despite their deserved title reigns it wasn't something the casual fan would come running for. I think some great feuds could have came out of Rock and Austin staying and I'm sure that by early 2005 all options may have become a little exhausted so Cena, Batista and Orton would have still risen but guys such as Benoit, Eddie and Jericho wouldn't have. If Rock was still making the occasional return in the current day, I really think that him and Punk jousting on the mic would have been fantastic. Â I think there was serious talk about this happening at one point problem is Rock legit can't stand Shanw Michaels. Â As big an HBK fan as I am I can't say I blame him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.