MoS

I would not agree. As Chris Jericho said, Austin's pops were always a shade above Rock's pops, and I would argue this was true even for 2000, which is a distant third in terms of Austin's overall overness behind 98/99. Although I do wonder why it is always Austin who is compared with Hogan for measuring the most popular WWE wrestler of all time. Should Rock not be in the discussion as well? He certainly belongs with them, and it can be argued, has better numbers than them as well. This, of course, is without counting his successful movie career.

The Background - Not many know this, but The Undertaker is hugely popular in India. Like, Bret Hart-in-Germany level popular. He has always been. So, they got Brian Lee to play The Undertaker in a Hindi movie, matching him up against one of the industry's most popular action stars, Akshay Kumar. He essentially played The Undertaker, a wrestler in an underground wrestling business. In this clip, he takes on Crush, who is sadly uncredited, in a fight literally to the death. It is a fun little match, although the psychology is all wrong - a Tombstone is treated as less dangerous than a drop toe hold, for instance. But it is worth checking out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3nPu5x9pLc P.S - I do not know if Pro Wrestling Mostly is the more appropriate forum for this, so if a moderator wants to move it to that forum, I will not complain.

How would you guys rate Steve Austin's performance as company ace? By this term, I am excluding the time in 2001 when he was WWF heel champ for most of the year as I strictly want to talk about his babyface run. Most people, when talking about great company aces, (this excludes drawing) talk about Shawn and Bret as great, consistent main event aces. Dylan said he might consider Cena to be the best company ace. I think Austin is unfairly shunted and excluded in these discussions. True, if the sole metric is matches, then he does not hold up as well as others. His time on top was short, and his body was broken down by them. However, analysing his performance week-to-week, he does a fantastic job, in my opinion. Austin was so good with his facial epressions, and, for all the talk about his changing the dynamics of faces and heels in WWF, he was a fantastic babyface. He was great at evoking sympathy from the crowd, and getting over the heels he was wrestling as credible threats. He was brilliant as a fiery babyface making comebacks and milking comebacks to the last little drop. it is telling that he was booked just as strongly as every company ace, yet he had no problems appearing vulnerable, something which not many have been able to do. Thoughts?

I read somewhere that Heyman himself made quite a bit of money from it, and ultimately used it to get himself a fat contract with Vince; that the filing for bankruptcy was just so that Vince could more easily purchase the assets. Is that correct?

Hello everyone. I am a wrestling fan from India; been one for close to 15 years now. I like reading as much as I possibly can about wrestling. This is something I have often wondered: how successful was ECW as a promotion? I have heard varied accounts. Some say that ECW never made Heyman a dime; while others talk about how he took Eastern Championship Wrestling from a struggling regional promotion drawing less than 200 to its shows to the third most successful American wrestling promotion of the 90s. Which one is closer to the truth? Can ECW be considered, all in all, a more successful promotion than WCW, seeing how WCW had everything, yet ultimately failed in a spectacular manner?