I'm voting for Randy Orton because I can't stand the love Steve Austin gets. I won't discredit Austin, like I'll always do Hogan, but the fact of the matter is Steve Austin isn't the great unbeatable that people try to make him out to be.
I understand what you're saying, but even through this statement you're setting yourself up for trying defend someone not because you want to see them advance so much as you loathe their opponent. To me at least, arguments like this are the easiest to break down.
In his prime he was booked to go over the others because simply put he brought in the most profit. But through pure wrestling terms he couldn't defeat half of those guys before he was selling tons of crap.
Is this not true of almost any rookie that isn't named Brock Lesnar or The Undertaker? We aren't going to argue that there have been countless matches where a future legend jobbed to someone who would never go on to do anything of importance. Most recently we have seen this in Jack Swagger. Altough he obviously isn't any where near legendary status, he has finally made it to the main event just months after jobbing to Santino Marella. It's not like you would have a midcard Shawn Michaels going over a main event Hulk Hogan in the early nineties. You wouldn't have a green Rocky Maivia go over an unstoppable Undertaker? Using the first half of a wrestlers career isn't always the best measuring stick when comparing him to another wrestler.
Bret Hart: Austin, to my knowledge, doesn't even hold one victory over him. Not pinfall/submission wise, anyways. This was right at the true beginning of everyone fawning over Austin as well.
Austin was on the verge of breaking out. He had a stay in the midcard and something was seen in him that warranted a step up. They had him go further with Hart than anyone expected. Many people consider this match to be in the top ten matches of all time. A rare example when a loss does more good for a man than a win does. You can also use IYH as an example. That match had Austin looking like a winner until a dq from Bulldog. So like I said, using the matches he had against a megastar like Hart before he had fully come into his own. Orton lost a couple matches in the beginning of his WWE career that are fare more embarrasing than a loss to Hart.
The Undertaker: It seems to me that Austin only got the upper hand in this match-up once he started producing money for the company. When they met throughout 1996, Austin was still using the same moves he used as a mega star. And he couldn't dent Taker. Suddenly, as a mega star Austin hits a stunner that in 1996 didn't even keep Taker down for 2 seconds, let alone 3. I don't buy that Austin beat him with talent - so much more with profit.
And Orton only had merchandise when they made him relevant. He didn't have any tshirts are dog tags for sale when he was still wrestling on Velocity. I seriously do not understand what the selling of merchandise has to do with anything. If we were talking about merchandise as a part of overall impact as the business than I would understand. We aren't however and even if we were, somebody who vocally isn't a supporter of Austin would admit he has had a far bigger impact. Again, I will state that there have been plenty of cases where a midcard talent loses to a main event wrestler and avenges the loss later in the career. You could chalk it up to experience moreso than merch sales.
The only true top name that Steve Austin ever truly beat through in-ring work, in my opinion, was The Rock. Now - again, I'm sure someone can prove this wrong with videos, or simply doing their homework. And my loathing of Austin certainly isn't withstanding.
Even you know this statemet can easily be dismissed so I'll pass. I will say that of the big names that Austin has beaten, he has loss to them as well. The same can be said of Orton however when it comes to the likes of Cena and Taker. So it would could down to who has beat bigger names, and I would say that The Rock, Undertaker and Triple H are bigger than Cena. I'm aware that Orton has beaten both Triple H and Taker, but Austin has defeated them more times.
Now, on the flip side. (through a non-profit point of view since Orton hasn't sold a fraction, I'm sure, of what Austin has.) Orton has been a heel through most of his career. Yes, he defeated names like Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker through underhanded tactics, but thats what he did to win. He didn't use weapons, he used the simple dirty tactics that are still available to him here. (well, minus Daddy, DiBiase and Rhodes, and special stips, I'm sure.)
Austin has done the same though so I'm not sure of the point here. He would use similar tactics: using the title as a weapon, undressing the turnbuckles, referee distraction. It's all in how you play the game. Weapons are only illegal if you get caught and Austin is no idiot. The man is incredibly ring aware and knows his placement within it. You can look at his former finisher
The Stun Gun for an example here. He needed to know he was an where the opponent would be. He has shown me nothing to believe that if he were to use a weapon he would be caught. If we are talking primes here, Austin wouldn't need to use a weapon at all. You are comparing Orton with a heel Austin when the truth of the matter is he was at his peak as a face. Orton has a great record of taking out legends like Undertaker, but only when it wasn't the most important match in the feud. He would win either before or after the most important matches, but when it came down to the one that really mattered, he would lose. I see the same here.
Orton rose to the top a hell of a lot quicker than Steve Austin. During a time when arguably a lot more big names were standing in his way. To me, thats impressive. He was shit as a face, but as a heel he was dominating and ruthless. He constantly found ways to win matches against the top names people never would've expected him to defeat. Cena, Taker, HHH, HBK.
What would be the top? The slumping ratings he had during his first WWE title run? Are we going to get into whether or not the title means more now than it did back than or vice versa? In my opinion, the title was still more meaningful when Austin held it than it was when Orton held it. Orton also didn't have Cena to deal with as he was out on injury. Austin had Undertaker, Kane, a rising Triple H, a new face in Big Show and Mick Foley. On Raw at the time, Orton had a returning Jericho. Pretty big discrepancy there between competition. You can't tell me that Orton was an underdog in matches against guys like Trips or Michaels or even Taker. His damn nickname was The Legend Killer.
It was his gimmick to defeat guys like that. Hardly an underdog at all. So he had plenty of expectations when it came to matches against those names.
Through trying to watch this match play out it could end in one of three ways.
1. Stunner attempt, Orton shoves him off and connects with an RKO. (similar to Orton winning against Benoit at Summerslam 04 - without cheating, yet in a shocking I can't believe that just happened fashion.)
2. RKO attempt, Austin shoves him off and hits a Stunner. (whenever you turn your back to Austin, he does have an uncanny ability to shove away then hit his finish.)
3. Orton/Austin Double DQ finish. Austin has had a few of these moments in his career, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this match ended that was as well.
I agree on those possible outcomes. When it comes down to the wire though, I see Austin outsmarting Orton and hitting the Stunner for the win. Orton is good and damn well on his way to something potentially awesome, but as of right now anything he has done, Austin has done better.
).