Fwd: Austin as Heel 2001: Too Hip for the Room?

By Scott Keith on June 7, 2019

Hey Scott–

I just got done rewatching King of the Ring 2001. Most of us agree that the Austin heel turn was a disaster, but I have to say that the concept that came out of the turn is fascinating. Austin losing his mind, needing not only the belt but VINCE'S LOVE to maintain any shred of sanity? That's a lot more complex than 99% of wrestling storylines. It was new and different, seemed like it had a lot of places to go, and you can't say Stone Cold wasn't completely devoted to playing the character.

Then of course we got the invasion and we dropped all of that so Austin could be "generic heel leader of generic heel faction."

So my question is; do you think that specific story could have gone in interesting places if:

A) They don't do the initial turn in TEXAS (where Austin could have lit The Rock on fire and the crowd would have cheered him)?

B) Vince hadn't Vinced all over the invasion?

Thoughts?

Austin's heel turn was fantastic from a creative standpoint, but with Rock going Hollywood and HHH about to be injured for months, it was the wrong place at the wrong time and ended up as one of the worst booking directions in history. You could make a legitimate case that the heel turn killed off the Attitude Era, the most profitable time in wrestling history up until now. Had Rock still been around as top babyface to balance it out, then sure, go for it. But Angle as the #1 guy wasn't gonna carry things, sorry.

Comments are disable in preview.