JacopeX
Dennis Stamp
Patience! Pashunz!
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JacopeX on Dec 28, 2008 10:12:58 GMT -5
I found WWE to be at its lowest at this time. Even lower than any other year I can think of. Sure it was pretty bad during the mid 90's when many great superstars left the company but the card was still strong with rising stars like Bret Hart, Shawn Micheals, Stone cold, etc. I think 2007 was utter crap IMO.
|
|
Mr Captain Falcon
Dennis Stamp
So I could write anything in here and it'll be posted?
Posts: 4,689
|
Post by Mr Captain Falcon on Dec 28, 2008 10:23:36 GMT -5
I'd say it was the worst because of the Benoit incident. But as far as matches and talent goes, 1995 was lower than WCW Power Pro.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2008 10:29:07 GMT -5
The worst is still 1995. I think I only liked about four wrestlers on the whole roster. Truly awful.
But 2007 was pretty bad because of the Benoit incident, which put a black cloud, of sorts, over wrestling as a whole. There were also a lot of injuries to major stars in '07, if I remember right. I'd say they've recovered well, as 2008 has been a great year for WWE.
|
|
|
Post by Metalheadbanger Man on Dec 28, 2008 10:30:40 GMT -5
'07 was better than '06 for me, wrestling wise anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2008 10:34:06 GMT -5
Nope, not for me
2003 was so bad that it led to me cancelling at the time my subscription to the channel that carried the wrestling as well as stop buying the PPVs
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Dec 28, 2008 10:38:35 GMT -5
As far as the quality, 07 was far from the worst year.
You had Taker vs Batista, New Breed vs Originals, Punk vs Morrison, Cena always delivering at PPV (even with 2 good matches against Khali), Orton's rise to the top, and Miz and Morrison teaming up. That stuff alone makes it worlds better than 95.
Publicity wise, 07 was the worst though.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Dec 28, 2008 11:04:35 GMT -5
When you can say that at one point, SD only had one legitimate main eventer in Batista, it was definately a bad year.
It was a lot to do with injuries and suspensions, but week to week the programming was no where near the quality that it is at now. There were no real storylines, and they tried to attempt one with the limo and Benoit ruined it.
I love it when you get people saying 'nothing is as bad as current WWE' because if you compare honestly, 2008 blows it out of the water. Every single PPV delivered the quality of the storylines were far better, programming was more enjoyable and the feuds were excellent.
2007 was the year I got back into wrestling, but it's strange, because even I can admit that it just was not a good year. They seemed to lack direction, apart from Cena being the top guy there was nothing else. Now they finally seem to know where they want to go as a company, and it's improved them loads.
|
|
|
Post by Killah Ray on Dec 28, 2008 11:17:05 GMT -5
2003 was a horrible year as far as the WWE goes....
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Dec 28, 2008 11:18:33 GMT -5
I thought 2003 was a great year personally, loved watching Smackdown each week.
I guess I'd say either the latter half of 06 with the god-awful DX reunion or maybe last year.
|
|
|
Post by Mantaurded on Dec 28, 2008 11:25:30 GMT -5
2006 seemed to be a lifetime
|
|
|
Post by D-Lo's #1 Fan on Dec 28, 2008 12:16:49 GMT -5
Jan-July 07 was awful but after that I liked it.
|
|
|
Post by MGH on Dec 28, 2008 12:22:01 GMT -5
If you're talking individual brands, I think Raw in 2003 could have had the most unentertaining, low quality year ever.
As a whole company, I'll go with 2007. I thought Raw in 06 sucked, but with BookAH and crew I was loving Smackdown most weeks. The rise of Matt Hardy, Kennedy climbing the ladder, usually Benoit and Finlay beating each other up every couple of weeks. Smackdown in 06 was hot stuff.
2007 had Benoit, it had s*** PPVs, had injuries left and right, and not even that much great in ring action.
|
|
|
Post by The Curmudgeon on Dec 28, 2008 12:24:31 GMT -5
What year was Scott Steiner considered main event material?
THAT was the worst year.
|
|
|
Post by Tyfo on Dec 28, 2008 12:35:14 GMT -5
There's going to have to be a lot (or lack of) work done to surpass 1995 in my eyes.
King Mabel was main eventing, in WCW you had the Dungeon of Doom feuding with Hogan (while Hogan started getting boo'd). There just wasn't much of anything good happening.
The only good things I can really recall were WCW bringing in Benoit, Guerrero, and Malenko near the end of 1995. That started sending them in a better direction, but other then that, 1995 was a big ball of bland and nothing.
It entertained me as a kid at the time, but looking back, I know it was awful.
|
|
nealo
Unicron
BRING IT BACK!!
Posts: 3,166
|
Post by nealo on Dec 28, 2008 12:57:20 GMT -5
07, not as good as 08 is. Not just because of Benoit but rubbish main events incuding Umaga and Khali.
|
|
|
Post by parder on Dec 28, 2008 13:05:01 GMT -5
As others have said 2003 gets a bad reputation because of Raw, with the only attraction for me being that this was also when the women's division on Raw came into its own with Trish, Jazz, Victoria, Molly, Gail Kim, and Lita. But Smackdown from 2002-2003 was great. It was a similar thing with 2006 when the Trish-Mickie storyline was the major attraction on Raw, but Smackdown was a lot of fun.
But lets not forget some of the awfulness that came out of 1993 in both WCW and WWF that was then followed by the steroid trial. Although there was some great wrestlecrap, the only genuinely good things I can think of from that year that I liked was the Bret-Lawler feud, the HBK-Jannetty feud for what it was, and Vader vs. Flair at Starrcade, which single handedly rescued that PPV.
So I think the three main candidates for worst year, since the first boom in the 80s would have to be 93, 95, or 07.
|
|
|
Post by The Curmudgeon on Dec 28, 2008 13:13:11 GMT -5
07, not as good as 08 is. Not just because of Benoit but rubbish main events incuding Umaga and Khali. The Umaga/Cena fight was awesome. It really did look like nothing could ever beat Umaga, he was booked so well (and he's great as well). Cena choking him out with the broken ring was frigging brilliant. Don't get me wrong, I wanted Umaga to win, but it was a cool way to put away a monster.
|
|
Albino Heat
Don Corleone
You're a nasty bastard, and your momma said so!!
Posts: 2,095
|
Post by Albino Heat on Dec 28, 2008 13:16:59 GMT -5
Personally, I don't think there were too many redeeming qualities out of 1999.
Austin and Taker getting injured, Owen, the title (and IC title) being passed around like a hot potato, Boss Man main eventing, BILLY GUNN main eventing...
Much worse than 07.
|
|
|
Post by punkish on Dec 28, 2008 13:28:42 GMT -5
I don't think 1995 was as bad as everyone makes it out to be. In WWE, Shawn Michaels, Kevin Nash and Bret Hart had a serious of strong matches against each other. Owen and the Bulldog formed an awesome tag team around this time. The Rumble had a great ending with HBK and Davey. And he may not be the most popular wrestler in IWC world, but HHH made his debut as a strong heel who fans loved to hate.
There were a lot of mistakes; Bret faced Backlund at Wrestlemania and Issac Yankum at Summerslam. Mable was placed in the main event. There was a hideous King of the Ring PPV. These were bad mistakes, but the year wasn't that awful.
In WCW, Hogan and Flair had some great matches (mostly because of Flair), Benot, Eddie, and Malenko debuted, cruiserweights got pushed, a strong heel in the Giant was introduced, and for cryin' out loud, THE MONDAY NIGHT WARS BEGAN!!!
The year 1995 seems awesome compared to some recent years.
|
|
Professor Chaos
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bringer of Destruction and Maker of Doom
Posts: 16,332
|
Post by Professor Chaos on Dec 28, 2008 20:38:11 GMT -5
I thought 07 was way better than 06.
|
|