LOL at Steve Austin's overall.

#1nuffsaid07Posted 3/30/2010 12:19:39 PM
If you watched WWE during 1998-99 you know he should be waaaaaaaaaaay higher.

Aren't the legend superstars supposed to be in their primes? Austin during his prime beat the Undertaker clean.
---
Less than a thimble full of iodine separates the intellectual from the imbecile.
#2Oreno5267Posted 3/30/2010 1:32:32 PM
i think yukes based him on 2000-2001 years version
---
Will Ichigo Kurosaki ever have tea with Sousuke Aizen?
http://s1.zetaboards.com/TheSanctuaryForum/index/ | http://bit.ly/FST500
#3vipermckayPosted 3/30/2010 1:37:39 PM
Overalls mean nothing in this game for the most part. The only stats that really matter are Strength, Durability and Submission. Everything else is basically pointless.
---
"Hank if you're steering then who's taking off your shirt!!!" -Dale Gribble
CoLa
#4nuffsaid07(Topic Creator)Posted 3/31/2010 8:11:12 AM
No it's definitely not 2001 Austin. He would've had his disturbed theme.
---
Less than a thimble full of iodine separates the intellectual from the imbecile.
#5winnies_revengePosted 4/9/2010 4:14:51 PM
i agree. austin should've been at least a 95 just like 80s hogan.

---
i'm crazy!
#6Carribean_CoolPosted 5/9/2010 1:59:32 PM

I dunno. His look is based on post attitude, with the 2 knee braces, but stat wise.. I mean 7.5 in strength? Should have been an 8 IMO, it's probably based on austin post attitude, the loeading screen of him is a pretty recent pic at the time.