Skip to main content

Austin v. Daniels

Okay, so normally I would never bother you with stuff going on at another site, but right now cageside seats is having their wrestler tourney to decide the best of all time.  And in the first round it's 1 seeded Steve Austin versus 16 seeded Daniel Bryan.  And Austin is winning, but people have actually voted for Bryan claiming he's been the best worker for 10 years or was a better worker...
 
Okay, this bothers me.  Wasn't Austin a better worker, both pre and post neck injury, than Bryan?  I get it, Bryan has great matches and has had some really great stuff.  But has he even done something that would rank with austin's top five matches?  The match with Bret at survivor series and WM, the match with foley (with the rules ever changing and undertaker being the enforcer), the 2/3 falls match with HHH, the main event with Rocky at WM 17 are all matches I would EASILY put above anything DB ever did.  That's excluding the stuff he did with Angle, the tag match with hunter/benoit/jericho, other matches with Rocky, Canadian Stampede (where Austin quickly went heel unlike Shamrock, to the match's benefit), underrated matches with Shawn (both of them), etc.
 
I guess my point is, have we accepted Austin pop culture phenom so much that we forget he's like one of the 10 best workers ever.  Or have I overrated him?

Well, it's not like there's any objective criteria for this sort of thing.  If you think Austin's the best, you can pretty much back it up with whatever you want and be "right".  I think it's apples and oranges anyway, because Austin worked two totally different styles pre and post injury. I will say that he became one of the smartest workers in history after the injury, but could still do a great "normal" match when he had to (like the Angle series in 2001).  If you're just talking pure technical skill, Daniels is probably better, but Austin delivered in the clutch.  

If you want to compare apples to apples, you could always judge their 18 second title losses against each other.  Because at least Daniels got to lose to Sheamus, whereas Austin had to get squashed by Jim Duggan.  

Comments

  1. Unfair comparison, considering that Daniel Bryan's WWE career is still in progress. I doubt he'll have a career better than one of the greatest ever in the industry, though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Would one factor in Brian Danielson's body of work? I can't, since i never followed the indies. But if that factors in Bryan is giving Austin a run for his money all right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yep, it's apples and oranges.  Once wrestlers are proficient at what they're doing and at what style they're going for, the arguments really become subjective.  There's about 10-20 wrestlers who can probably lay claim to being the best and have an effective and legitimate argument, which is probably why there is a 16-man tournament.

    Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart have two very distinct and different styles, but if I had to rate them, they'd essentially be 1a and 1b.  Shawn is the best apple and Bret is the best orange, and it's extraordinarily difficult to objectively say one is better than the other.  They're both good for ya, by the way.

    Whatever the parameters of the "best" question, I think we can all agree that versatility is paramount.   Look at Bryan's desperate and frenetic pace against Big Show and then his series with Punk--two different but captivating exhibitions.  And as the original e-mailer said, Austin was able to have good-great matches with a wide variety of people.  The truly great ones adapt.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm... not sure why you keep calling him Daniels. My mind seriously kept bringing up "The Fallen Angel" when you did it.


    Daniel Bryan = Bryan Danielson

    Christopher Daniels = Uh... Christopher Daniels.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not comfortable with the wording of "EASILY put above anything DB ever did," because Danielson's late ROH work, especially as champion, was some of the best wrestling ever. But it's still vastly different from Austin's prime. In their primes, Danielson was working to appeal to the indie audience while Austin was working for the "mainstream" audience.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It depends what criteria you use. When it comes to pure workrate, Brian wins easily. The high profile matches that Austin had at the height of the attitude era were just punches and wandering around the building and a stunner. By any other measurement, Austin is in the top five. I personally have tried to watch stuff from the neck injury through the heel turn and find them incredibly boring.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 5-star match at WrestleMania > 5-star match in RoH.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I really don't see the distinction. They're both wrestling matches. One is just in front of a MUCH bigger audience.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah, ridiculous to even compare them. But what criteria SHOULD determine the best ever? I think these voting things should be preceded by a vote as to how you should judge them.

    For example, let's say you can judge a wrestler on workrate, big matches, drawing, promos, personality, etc everyone should say how important each one is, comparitively, and then you can take the consensus/average and use that as your criteria.

    At a guess, you'd end up with workrate/ring ability being worth 40%, drawing worth 20%, then a few other things at 10% each. By that, Austin would destroy Bryan every single time.

    We should do this on the blog. Yes, I'm bored.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "
    I personally have tried to watch stuff from the neck injury through the heel turn and find them incredibly boring".

    Umm, how else do you watch something if not in person?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I remember seeing someone on here continually refer to him as "Bryan Daniels," that may be it. I dunno. When it comes to Austin vs. Christopher Daniels, there's no question that Stone Cold was better.

    ReplyDelete
  12. agree, as someone who was too young to be watching during the Attitude era, it seems like a lot of shortcuts and smoke and mirrors where used to make austin look good post injury on all the older DVD's (particularly towards the end in 2001)  I think Austin is the better mike worker by leaps and bounds, but Daniel Bryan Danielson could, to steel a cliche, carry a broomstick to a **** match.  I don't think either side is wrong, it just depends what you want in wrestling, Bryan is arguably the greatest technical wrestler in the world, but Austin is an entertainer like no other.  it sucks there matched up in the first round cause honestly the both could've gone deep

    ReplyDelete
  13.  Even that has to be clarified...

    I mean, are we talking how many ****+ matches each had? Or how many ****+ matches each had that people actually saw?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Not a popular opinion here, but I really hate almost every Steve Austin match from 1998 through 1999. Austin until the Owen injury? Great. Austin after returning from neck surgery in late 2000? AWESOME.

    Got no time for garbage Attitude Austin matches.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It wasn't just Austin, the WWF kind of stopped caring about workrate in the period between the Montreal thing and the Radicals jumping from WCW/Kurt Angle showing up/Russo defecting to WCW. It was all about Crash TV and adult-oriented storylines. I found the Attitude era totally un-watchable up until 2000, but I'm definitely in the minority there. I'm the sort of guy that just watches for the in-ring work and for the most part don't really give a shit about the angle involved.

    As for Austin v. Bryan, I'd much rather watch Bryan (never found Austin entertaining at all during his WWF run, he was pretty good in WCW, and fucking awesome in his short ECW run), but if I were a promoter I'd take Austin, no contest there.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "But has he even done something that would rank with austin's top five matches?"

    are we just talking about "Daniel Bryan" or are we talking about "Bryan Danielson" as well. if the latter, there were A LOT of matches that, depending on personal taste, could be considered to be totally on par with Austin's best matches (against McGuiness, against Kenta, against Morishima, ...).

    and if we're comparing not only fantastic, but also very good matches (starting from ***) Danielson seems the definite winner.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wham, Kick, Punch, Stunner.
    1,2,3.Suck it Dougie.*Tooth Pick to the face*.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I feel sorry for your mother.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Based on pure match quality, Danielson's run from 2003-2007 in both Japan and ROH probably produced better matches than Austin's from 98-2001. But again, it was a different style and both were good in their own way. Austin as a technical wrestler from 92-97 was very good but Danielson benefits from having some awesome hour long matches with the likes of Roderick Strong and Austin Aries. Danielson was on such a role in 2006 that he could have an excellent match on every show, be portrayed as the best in the world, yet still look like he could lose his title, The fact that he had matches where people bought that Delirious could potentially win the World Title would highlight how talented he was between the ropes.

    As Scott said though, it's apples and oranges as they were working completely different styles during their peak years. I'd probably go Danielson just because he was better at selling for his opponents as both a heel and a babyface where as Austin didn't tend to sell as well as a face and would often be too insecure to let the heel beat him down for any sustained period of time.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm guessing the emailer has only seen WWE Bryan, which is still pretty great, but ROH Bryan had some of the highest concentration of great matches in anyone's career. Even at his peak, Austin had a few stinkers in PPV main events (Vince, UT at Over The Edge, even WM 15 against The Rock). Danielson always brought the goods, from 05-08 he turned in matches every month in ROH that were never less than good, and often times great or amazing. All of Austin's wins matter more in the long run, but just in raw numbers I don't think it's invalid to vote Bryan over him.

    However, Austin changed the whole main event wrestling style and promo style for an entire company and helped turn the wrestling business around, so he's definitely more important in the long run. 

    ReplyDelete
  21. So you have no time for Austin/Foley, Austin/Rock, Austin/Trips?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Austin v. Foley from Over the Edge '98? That thing's a CLASSIC, man. 

    ReplyDelete
  23. Austin's Attitude Era matches are being criminally undersold in this thread. Dude Love at Over the Edge and Undertaker at Summerslam aren't perfect by any means, but they're a hell of a lot more than just punch-punch-punch-Stunner. And by any reasonable standard, Austin being able to adjust his style and continue to put on compelling matches despite being practically crippled is a strong point in his favor. If you think that match quality is determined by the number and variety of moves performed, you should take up watching gymnastics since you'd probably get more out of it than from wrestling.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I just looked at the brackets (http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1201442/Day18_CSSBracket_1_.jpg)

    Benoit vs Bret seemed like a good way to get Benoit out early. Punk vs Batista, Guerrero vs Orton and Piper vs Vader look interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bryan is also a lot younger than Austin.  IMO, Bryan is still in his Stunning, Superstar and Ringmaster eras.  He's never had the chance to be Stonecold main-event Daniel Bryan, you can't compare them until Bryan's career is done.  I honestly don't think these things should include active and inactive wrestlers, it's unfair.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I suppose there's an argument for voting for Batista in his matchup (albeit a marginal one), but I want the names and addresses of anyone who votes against Eddy or Vader so I can pay them a visit. Also, Rick Rude got robbed.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I want to know (Love or hate the guy) how Nash lost against Booker. 

    ReplyDelete
  28. What the hell is the criteria for this thing? If it's drawing power, how is Cena a #3, but Shawn and Taker are #2's? If it's workrate, how is Bret only a #3? Even if it's some combination of the two, how the fuck is Andre a #2? Seriously questionable seeding.

    ReplyDelete
  29. But don't you think that MUCH bigger audience alters the work/psychology of the match? It's a lot different delivering a ***** match to 70000 in a football stadium with millions more watching on PPV than a couple hundred in a high school gym.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Vader was against Piper, one of the central characters of the 80s, the greatest mic worker in wrestling history, and someone who could pull out a damn good match when motivated. Vader was also great, but not great like that. 

    ReplyDelete
  31. ohhhh a mother joke chico.  Must have been a bad ass in grade 5 down in the south.
    Faaakk you Ryder mark.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You obviously don't understand what a joke is. I honestly pity her. You should leave the trolling to cult-status and comdukakis. They're better at it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?

    I really don't care what kind of matches Bryan was putting on in front of a couple thousand people for ROH against a bunch of guys I've never heard of.  Just like I don't care if a minor-league baseball player hits 75 HR's in a season or if some indie rock band blows your mind in a dive bar in a Wichita, KS.  

    Bryan putting on a 5-star matches on an internet-only PPV doesn't belong in the same conversation as Austin tearing down the house at Wrestlemania.  Bryan having a pretty entertaining run during a period where the Raw rating is lucky to break 3.5 also doesn't compare to Austin headlining when the WWE could break into the high 7s and even 8.0 ratings.  

    ReplyDelete
  34. You should go live in North Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Its not trolling. I just dont like your face or grammar. 

    ReplyDelete
  36. Must be a rough life disliking beauty.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Piper is easily the most overrated ever. The truth is that his mic skills were horrid after wrestlemania 3.

    ReplyDelete
  38. you are right. piper is terrible on the mic after wm 3. the bret match and the matches with flair in 91 are good but that year stands out in between years of suck.

    ReplyDelete
  39. lol... harsh but he has a point.

    roh's best ppv doesnt compare to wm 2.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Working goes beyond just the match, it includes the build ups and the aftermatch. Austin is the best worker of all time because his character united crowds behind him and drew millions of fans in. Sure we can say Danielson knows millions of moves (I love me some Daniel Bryan), but he hasn't done anything near what Austin has done. Maybe he will in the future? His career isn't over yet.

    ReplyDelete
  41. That's insane.  Quality is quality, regardless of where it's happening or who's watching.

    ReplyDelete
  42.  People like you mystify me. Maybe I'm in the minority but I appreciate something that's really high quality on a low down personal level much more than just glitzy spectacle. I'd rather see a less famous band play a no frills set in an intimate club setting a million times before I'd want to see some giant stage show where you're a million miles away and the band doesn't connect with the audience. Just like I'd rather see a 5 star match up close and personal between two guys who are out there doing it because they love it than a more popular Wrestlemania match that needs a bunch of expensive gimmicks to cover for the ring work. Not saying that in terms of importance, Austin's run isn't better, because his matches meant more to wrestling than Danielsons, but saying Danielson's work in ROH isn't important because it wasn't in front of millions of people just doesn't make any sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Vader is, at a minimum, one of the top 20 workers of all time. Piper isn't anywhere close to that.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Sure it does. One way to measure if something is good is if people pay to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Because if it was really that great, lots more people would pay to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Opinions my friend.

    I like me some Vader but top 20... of ALL TIME?

    Wow

    ReplyDelete
  47. Beyond everything else, Daniel Bryan shouldn't be in the conversation because he's a nerd. A nerd!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Queen at Live Aid parallels Rock/Austin at WM 17

    Bryan/McGuiness parallels Nirvana in Seattle circa 1990.

    ReplyDelete
  49. That is ridiculous. People paying to see it has more to do with advertising, market availability, infrastructure (e.g. ppv, cable tv), etc. than it has to do with the quality of the product. Hence why DB was able to come to the WWE and be more over than 99% of the roster. He is damn talented, and exposure to that talent had merely been limited in the past.

    As for DB vs Austin. They both are awesome. So I vote both!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Alters it, yes.  But moves, pacing, and selling are a constant.  Do you honestly think that a large crowd automatically makes for more legit fake fighting than the stuff that goes on in smaller venues?  Put it this way:  Does a large crowd make the Great Kahli NOT suck?

    And could we please stop it with the "high school gym" thing?  Yeah he worked some small and crappy venues, but he's wrestled in Japan in front of some pretty big crowds, and his best stuff came in front of legit crowds.  

    ReplyDelete
  51. Yes sir!  Value your ignorance and don't let anyone (aaaaanyone) tell you otherwise.


    Thank God the crowds at Wrestlemania are there to tell you that Austin is tearing down the house.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Right, because it's not like advertising, exposure and opportunity factor into things.  Bigger equals better.  That's why lots of people eat McDonalds.

    ReplyDelete
  53. He's unquestionably the best superheavyweight of all time. And there aren't too many guys who excelled in a wider variety of environments. He was great in New Japan, WCW, WWF, All Japan...he was even great in UWFi. To be honest, I consider ranking him outside the top 20 contrarian.

    ReplyDelete
  54. im all for unplugging from the collective round these parts, and again I like me some Vader, but just for shits and giggles if you dont mind, in no specific order would u rank your top 20? Maybe Im just giving some guys too much credit. Maybe Im just low balling Vader.

    ReplyDelete
  55. The only wrestlers I'd place above Vader without reservation are Jumbo Tsuruta, Misawa, Kawada, Terry Funk, Kobashi, Flair, Bret, Eddy, and Stan Hansen. Vader is in the next level down with HBK, Lawler, Austin, Steamboat, Aja Kong, Jushin Liger, and El Hijo del Santo, which I could really see being put in any order. I'm not sure who would round out the top 20. Depending on my mood, it could be anybody from Randy Savage to Billy Robinson.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Vader totally belongs on your list. Its a great list btw. Touched alot of promotions and styles and eras. Kudos

    ReplyDelete
  57. Thanks, man.

    ReplyDelete
  58.  exactly, I say Danielson wins workrate, i mean for christ's sake he managed to make the AIRPLANE SPIN a believable finish in the 2000's, he spun Homicide 77 FUCKING TIMES (by my count) I don't now how he had the where-with-all to make the cover.  but if i'm Vince McMahon, or Dixie Carter, or Paul Heyman, or any other promoter, i put personal feelings aside and i take Austin 

    ReplyDelete
  59. How he did that spot without puking, I'll never know. I got a bit of motion sickness just watching it. Homicide probably didn't feel too hot either. 

    ReplyDelete
  60. By that logic James Cameron is the greatest director of all time.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Yeah, McDonald's makes the most money, that's why it's better than the French Laundry.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Steve Austin doesn't deserve to be in the conversation because his beard is nothing compared to Bryan's beard.  Men have beards, Bryan has a better beard, Bryan is the better man.

    ReplyDelete
  63. That's just a stupid comparison. There are thousands of McDonald's restaurants. There aren't thousands of Steve Austins having matches.

    ReplyDelete
  64. He is certainly one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Uh no. If he were that great, people would tell other

    ReplyDelete
  66. That is just asinine. It completely removes context from his work and pretends that people wrestle in a vacuum wherein all factors are equal. TV deals, PPV access, money to promote and hold shows - it's all extremely important. Pretending that 2000 people in a small venue should somehow sprout 5 million viewers by "word of mouth" is not only putting absolutely ridiculous expectations on a guy like Bryan (way beyond those Austin ever had to deal with), but also ignores the whole history of the wrestling business in the past 30 years, which is a constant testament to the power of money over quality product. 

    ReplyDelete
  67. Yeah, you pretty clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The goal as a performer is to create a product that people want to pay to see. Which Steve Austin did a billion times greater than Brian Danielson.

    ReplyDelete
  68. What "product" did Austin or Danielson create? They have no say over the camera work, visual effects, Tv deals, PPV distribution, sets, arena rentals, story lines, match length, etc. that they are involved in. To remove all of this context and replace it with "Austin had a bigger audience and was thus a better wrestler" is nuts. If that was the case why didn't ECW become the number one company when Austin was portraying essentially the same character in 1995? Why didn't Hogan turn TNA into a juggernaut? You can't ignore context.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Lol. First, Austin's character in ecw was nothing like his character in wwf. Second, he was in ecw for like three months. Are you being willfully ignorant or is it just a coincidence?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Sigh...It must be a coincidence... Where did all the sane people that used to inhabit this blog go?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Yes, you're sane, it's the rest of the world that's crazy. Seriously, you're exam

    ReplyDelete
  72. Gah! Dougie, you're tearing me apart!

    ReplyDelete
  73. Thanks! But it's not really me. Anybody could rip your nonsensical arguments to shreds. I can't really take too much credit.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Put the crack pipe down and clean up your life.

    ReplyDelete
  75. There aren't thousands of Steve Austin's having matches, but there are thousands of TVs playing his matches.  Which is a much more apt comparison to McDonald's.

    ReplyDelete
  76. No it isn't. It's not even close to an apt comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Sorry to try and bring some reality into your life. Go back to fantasy land.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Well, at least I had an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  79. My recollection of Stunning Steve was that he totally sucked the life out of the TV title.  His entire offense seemed to be little more than punch, kick, and Stun Gun.  I give him credit for upping his game in later years, but I think that he only had about 6 or 7 years where he was what I'd call a really good worker.

    ReplyDelete
  80. The best worker is the guy that makes the most money, brother!

    ReplyDelete
  81. North Korea is hardly a hotbed of professional wrestling.  That Flair/Inoki match sucked donkeys.

    ReplyDelete
  82. How are we supposed to rate people on lists like this?  Is it rating everyone performing at their peak?  Is it an average level of performance throughout their career?  Do latter year declines in performance move one down the list of all-time workers?

    Based on average performance over a career, I'd have to say that Lawrence Taylor is one of the top 20 workers of all time.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Keep thinking that big guy.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Theare's no reason to assume that if ROH had landed a TV deal in the mid 00s that it wouldn't have caught on big. If anything the fault lies with ROH's shitty production values. Obviously there was money to be made with Danielson as a sports entertainer, hence why he's such a big deal now.

    ReplyDelete
  85.  Somewhere during his Stud Stable days he was a really proficient submission wrestler, he was doing that indisan deathlock variation called the Holly wodd & Vine. Had he stayed with that stye he'd have been classifeid as another Benoit or Malenko.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Such a lot of excuses.

    ReplyDelete
  87.  Why u gotta hate so much man? I liked your comment up there because I agreed with you, do you just have to disagree with me out of habit? Seriously your whole isssue with me came from my thoughts on AMy Winehhouse, it had nothing to do with wrestling anyway. Why is everything a fight with you? What do you even get out of posting here, if all you wanna do is disagree with everyone? I just don't get it, and I really wanna know. Sometimes you have good points, why can't you just stand behind them and not teare eveyone else dodwn/?

    ReplyDelete
  88. I, like most of the world, disagree with your opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  89.  Phrederic I only have one response.  YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

    ReplyDelete
  90. This is a question that's 10 years too early to answer. 

    ReplyDelete
  91. This started over Amy Winehouse?  I don't remember this at all.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment