@ChadSmart on Twitter
I made a comment on the My1-2-3 Cents Facebook page during Raw that I don’t think was interpreted the way I meant it. So I’m going to try and clarify it here. The comment was based around the commercial for WWE’s new DVD “Greatest Stars of the 21st Century.” I will admit I have not seen the DVD. I was going to wait until I saw it to write this, but it’s not a DVD I’m going to go out of my way to see so by the time I would have seen this topic would be past it’s freshness date.
The comment I made was, “Should Stone Cold be featured on the DVD since his in-ring career was mostly over by 2002?” In no way need I mean to imply Stone Cold wasn’t worthy of being considered in the Greatest Stars category. My query was does a two-year active wrestling stint qualify him for inclusion as greatest for an entire decade. Would Austin be considered a Greatest Stars of the 80s even though he only wrestled in 1989? I agree with his inclusion on the Greatest Stars of the 1990’s. Since he was a semi-major player in WCW in the early ‘90s and then the run at the top of WWF in the late ‘90s. Steve Austin is truly a star of that decade.
However, even with his run at the top during 2000-2001, I don’t feel he should be included on the new DVD. Again, not taking anything away from Austin’s accomplishments.
My dislike for Austin being on the DVD may also be rooted in a problem with how WWE treats wrestlers who made a name for themselves in the post-attitude years. As I wrote in a past article, WWE has the tendency to make current stars look inferior whenever a former star is around. True the current stars may not be as big of a draw as the former stars and they never will be if they’re treated on-air as second rate.
|Austin in 2007|
I looked over the chapter listing for the DVD and it does seem to include several guys who rose to main event status during the first decade of the 21st century. I simply think Steve Austin (and the Rock as well) shouldn’t be on the DVD as they were already stars and their time inside the ring was limited. That’s all I meant with the comment. Not saying Austin wasn’t a part of the decade. But showing up randomly and stunnering guys who were trying to get over with the crowd, doesn’t make him a “greatest star” in my eyes. Actually that made me dread every time he showed up. But that’s another rant.
I hope this has cleared up any confusion my comment made. Again, not downplaying the significance of Steve Austin’s career, just limiting the focal point of said career.