|
Post by The Lach is very tired on Jan 18, 2011 7:16:01 GMT -5
Firstly I'm not a mod & I'm not looking to become one, so I have less then zero authority but this is something that came to me when I logged in today. So I turned 27 today. I have been watching wrestling for about 20 years now. I know there are a lot of posters older then me but there is a large amount younger too. I'm sure there is a pretty big percentage of posters here that have never seen any WWE from before they bought WCW. They didn't flick channels between Nitro & Raw. They don't remember a time where WWE was the number 2 company & very nearly went under. I'm sure there are people here who have never seen a proper Bret Hart match, people who didn't see The Rock before he was Dwayne Johnson the movie star, people who never saw Steve Austin do anything more then quote a few lines, hit the Stone Cold Stunner & drink some beer. I'm even sure there are people here who have only ever known of the Brand Split & the "John Cena Bling" version of the WWE Championship, people for whom ECW means Jack Swagger, Evan Bourne & Yoshi Tatsu wrestling on SyFy. So taking all this into account does anybody share my opinion that maybe we need to update our definition of "WWE Current"? I have listed a few different options as to the time frames we could possibly discuss. I'm not asking for it to change I'm just interested to gauge opinions on this. Who knows, maybe the winds of change are blowing
|
|
|
Post by The Lach is very tired on Jan 19, 2011 7:42:45 GMT -5
So from 2001 onwards is winning so far. Interesting....
|
|
|
Post by Spearmint* on Jan 19, 2011 7:47:02 GMT -5
But think of how many of the most discussed topics on here are about Wrestlers who debuted before 2001.
Triple H - arguably the most discussed wrestler of all time online. Edge - gets a lot of discussion Kane - Longest reigning champion of the last 5 years (I'm pretty sure anyway) Undertaker - Obviously always in discussion.
I think it's too early to move the time on. Maybe when those crop of wrestlers move on. It's just too early to ignore the 90's and shun it into a different part of Wrestling when it's still relevant and discussed today.
(I know obviously your not saying we should stop talking about Edge etc, I get that, but they did debut before the cutoff and are still top stars today so it seems a bit soon)
|
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Jan 19, 2011 18:23:25 GMT -5
2001 on forward
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2011 18:29:52 GMT -5
I'd rather it stay as is, I don't want all material referring to the attitude era to have to go to some separate board that hardly anyone reads.
|
|
|
Post by chunkylover53 on Jan 19, 2011 18:34:30 GMT -5
I've been saying that since the very beginning. How about from April 3, 2005 onwards? Makes sense since WWE wants to force the idea that it was the dawning of a new era.
|
|
|
Post by lemonyellowson on Jan 19, 2011 19:47:11 GMT -5
I'd rather it stay as is, I don't want all material referring to the attitude era to have to go to some separate board that hardly anyone reads. this
|
|
|
Post by Son of a Pregnant Dog on Jan 19, 2011 19:50:34 GMT -5
I'd rather it stay as is, I don't want all material referring to the attitude era to have to go to some separate board that hardly anyone reads. I'd hang out at the Attitude-era board (add ECW and WCW to it, too), and make way more posts there than I would at the board for more recent product. I'd actually like such a board, maybe 1996-2005. I have much to say about nostalgia (what brought me to WrestleCrap and to these boards in the first place) and not too much to say about the guys everyone likes these days.
|
|
percymania
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Percymania will live forever! Oh yeah!
Posts: 17,296
|
Post by percymania on Jan 19, 2011 19:51:21 GMT -5
I don't understand why all time periods aren't inclusive on the WWE board. Over 50% of the topics are about things that happened in the last few weeks anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Jan 19, 2011 19:58:53 GMT -5
I'd rather it stay as is, I don't want all material referring to the attitude era to have to go to some separate board that hardly anyone reads. It would still get more views then the TNA section When that section hits 1000 topics I am gonna throw a party.
|
|
Ozman
Samurai Cop
Chi-Town!!!
Posts: 2,375
|
Post by Ozman on Jan 20, 2011 3:12:42 GMT -5
YES, and it should have been changed a long time ago!!! Think about it, almost everything that was hot in "Pop Culture" during the "Attitude Era" isn't even relevant anymore. On an "NBA Current" board, no body is gonna talk about Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, or Charles Barkley. No one on an "NFL Current" board is gonna be talking about Deon Sanders or Emmett Smith. No one on a "MLB Current" board is gonna be talking about McGuire VS Sosa breaking the Home Run Record. No one on a "Hip Hop Current" board is gonna be talking about the "East Coast/West Coast Beef". Yet this board considers the "Attitude Era" WWE Current, despite the fact that WWE wasn't even called "WWE" during the "Attitude Era". Explain to me how the "Attitude Era" is part of "WWE Current", despite the fact that NO PART of the "Attitude Era" EVER took place under the name "WWE"?!!! That's like a "Spike TV Current" board talking about shows that took place on "TNN". I think that part of the reason that the "Attitude Era" is considered "WWE Current" is because of the people running this board are probably very fond of that era, and subconsciously think that by "holding on" to that era on the "current" board will somehow "magically" make that era return. Why not just create a separate board titled "WWF Attitude" that focuses specifically on that time period? Or how about even creating a board called "WWF Classics" to talk about all things that happened during the "Attitude Era" and earlier? IMO, "WWE Current" should be exactly what the name says, and start from no earlier that the "Brand Split" era, which was about the same time that the company changed it's name to "WWE" in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Jan 20, 2011 4:03:26 GMT -5
I'm all for it. The Wrest of wrestling section isn't that active. If attitude/monday night era was moved to there it would it give it a lot more views and probably end a lot of the attitude vs PG era debates in this section.
|
|
|
Post by Caglar13 on Jan 20, 2011 4:20:34 GMT -5
I'd say change current from 96 to either 2001 onward or 2002 to reflect when the name changed to WWE.
Also I think it'd be cool to get a few new additions:
Monday Night Wars - Containing Peak WCW era, Attitude Era WWF discussion and ECW until Vince became the monopoly man. Just a section dedicated to the last boom period.
A section to cover any era/promotion before '95 like (w)rest is now.
Maybe add a current Independents/MMA discussion so it doesn't get clustered with (w)rest.
|
|
Greer
Unicron
Points. Don't. Matter.
Posts: 3,199
|
Post by Greer on Jan 20, 2011 6:45:35 GMT -5
I don't see the problem. It's not like Attitude era threads are all over the place. They are very few and far between really.
Couldn't you just call the section...WWE?
Breaking everything up too much is kind of, well, annoying.
|
|
|
Post by maxheadroom on Jan 20, 2011 7:24:23 GMT -5
I think 2006 - onward. Right now it covers over a ten year period and there isn't much discussion in the wrest of wrestling forum because of it. There's nothing current about anything from 1996.
Hell, I'd prefer if it only covered 2009 - 2011 in here even. Keep it actually current.
|
|
deancubed
Don Corleone
Playing League of Legends
Posts: 1,350
|
Post by deancubed on Jan 20, 2011 7:39:02 GMT -5
Just like the WWE wants us to believe - today's current wrestling era began with John Cena and Batista winning the world titles at Wrestlemania. After Lesnar and Goldberg left the company. Bradshaw = too old, JBL = Just Right. Nothing older than Evolution is relevant to today's current WWE.
|
|
nm
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,084
|
Post by nm on Jan 20, 2011 7:50:31 GMT -5
From the poll the 2001-on option, but I agree with the "just call the forum "WWE" with all eras". Not a big deal at all, though.
|
|
|
Post by YYYWID on Jan 20, 2011 13:51:11 GMT -5
Just make it the WWE forum
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 20, 2011 14:16:30 GMT -5
It's been discussed in the past, and the consensus has generally been that around '96/Attitude Era was when things 'changed' to the current structure of what the biz is now.
In all honesty the 'Current' part is just a name to delineate from that fifteen year period onward. No reason, in my view, to continually have to update that every few years.
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Jan 20, 2011 14:40:09 GMT -5
If anything were to be changed, I would suggest making it "WWF/WWE" and leaving out the "current". I mean, why not discuss stuff before 1996 here? It happens anyway, just with "what if it happened in the attitude era". The Other Wrestling forum doesn't get as much traffic and I don't see a crazy number of pre-1996 WWF discussion there anyway.
Not that it makes a difference to me though, I barely remember anything WWF/WWE related before '96. I just don't want the cut off date to be moved forward any, that would suck.
|
|