tms
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,901
|
Post by tms on Aug 30, 2012 21:25:11 GMT -5
Bret Hart was having *** to **** matches with almost anyone he worked with... When I first read this, I had a hard time figuring out which words were being censored. I knew that *** could only be "ass," but ass to what? He had ass to s*** matches? Ass to f*** matches? What do those things even mean? Oh...wait. Three to four star matches. Gotcha. For what it's worth, I still think of "OMG" standing for "One Man Gang"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2012 21:41:33 GMT -5
1995 WWF was great in comparison to WCW 2000. Bret Hart was having *** to **** matches with almost anyone he worked with (and considering some of the people he worked with, that's a testament to Bret's in-ring skills). Not to mention HBK having good-great matches on a regular basis as well. WCW 2000 was just plain s***ty for the most part. Yup. vs. Diesel (twice) vs. Backlund vs. Hakushi vs. PIERRE!!!! vs. Yankem vs. Lawler vs. Bulldog and some pretty good Raw matches against Jarrett, Hakushi and Owen made him look pretty damn good in 1995.
|
|
thecrusherwi
El Dandy
the Financially Responsible Man
Brawl For All
Posts: 7,656
|
Post by thecrusherwi on Sept 1, 2012 11:52:25 GMT -5
I've actually talked about this a bunch in other threads, but I really like the WWF in 95. Part of it is nostalgia, but it's also not that bad. Sure there are some silly gimmicks and stuff, but there are a lot of interesting guys too and it's at least logically booked like other people have said.
The only crime 1995 WWF commits is that it can be very boring at times. The universally panned King of the Ring 95 is the best example. That show is not bad, but it makes 2.5 hours feel like 2.5 weeks.
Do yourself a favor and watch some New Generation WWF. If you just watch it and don't try to compare it to the Hogan Era or the Attitude Era I bet you'll enjoy quite a bit of it.
Contrast that with WCW 2000 which completely restarts its booking at least 2 or 3 times in the year and has that Goldberg/Steiner/Nash "Who's going to do business?" storyline which is probably the most stupid thing I will ever see in wrestling. It's like a movie were the storyline is whether the actors involved are going to follow the script while the story they're acting out is pointless.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Sept 1, 2012 13:40:54 GMT -5
WCW 2000 was more entertaining, but heartbreaking because you could tell the company was dying. WWF in 1995 seemed risky, seemed like they could go under but to a fan you'd never think they could, so it was just a year of shoddy television.
As a fan, even a young fan, with WCW 2000, you could see the company dying onscreen.
By the end of 2000 it bounced back and the TV was much better but it was already too late.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,292
|
Post by The Ichi on Sept 1, 2012 14:45:59 GMT -5
As bad as 1995 WWF was, it still had Bret Hart in his prime.
|
|
Jam
Unicron
Spiral out
Posts: 2,934
|
Post by Jam on Sept 1, 2012 15:37:47 GMT -5
I'd say WWF95 was worse. It was boring and seemed like it was solely for little kids, like it is now. WCW 2000 was at least train wreck entertaining. How exactly is WWE aimed only at kids these days? I watch Raw and Smackdown every week and besides being rated PG I don't see how they're appealing to only kids. Lately it seems they're doing a great job of targeting every segment of they're audience.
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Sept 1, 2012 18:21:34 GMT -5
Well, to be honest I will say on a train wreck level I probably enjoy WCW in 2000 more because it is more amusing to me, but WWF in 1995 was clearly the superior product. If you go back and watch a WWF show from 1995 you'll probably see some really good wrestling, some really bad gimmicks, and overall a promotion that needed a tweaking and new direction. WCW in 2000 was like watching Rome burn. Regimes changed once every 3 months or so, nothing made sense, the company was restarted, etc. Even a show as bad as KOTR 1995 has some sense of professionalism and long term consequence, even if it was a bad one like Mabel getting a title shot at SS.
What's funny is that I finally caught up with some of the PPVs from 1995 like Summerslam and Survivor Series, and there's some really excellent stuff on those shows. In fact only the ghastly Diesel/Mabel main event marred an otherwise stellar SS PPV.
|
|
|
Post by wildojinx on Sept 2, 2012 8:57:57 GMT -5
Actually, from the post-summerslam period, WWF started getting better. With the exception of IYH 4, all the ppvs were decent to good (with survivor series 95 being highly underrated), and they kind of started getting rid of the goofier characters (some remained like the godwinns, but the likes of man mountain rock, aldo montoya, tekno team 2000, etc were turned into JTTS).
|
|
thecrusherwi
El Dandy
the Financially Responsible Man
Brawl For All
Posts: 7,656
|
Post by thecrusherwi on Sept 2, 2012 17:38:24 GMT -5
Well, to be honest I will say on a train wreck level I probably enjoy WCW in 2000 more because it is more amusing to me, but WWF in 1995 was clearly the superior product. If you go back and watch a WWF show from 1995 you'll probably see some really good wrestling, some really bad gimmicks, and overall a promotion that needed a tweaking and new direction. WCW in 2000 was like watching Rome burn. Regimes changed once every 3 months or so, nothing made sense, the company was restarted, etc. Even a show as bad as KOTR 1995 has some sense of professionalism and long term consequence, even if it was a bad one like Mabel getting a title shot at SS. What's funny is that I finally caught up with some of the PPVs from 1995 like Summerslam and Survivor Series, and there's some really excellent stuff on those shows. In fact only the ghastly Diesel/Mabel main event marred an otherwise stellar SS PPV. I actually just watched SummerSlam 95 a few days ago and it is awesome other than Diesel and Mabel. Royal Rumble and Survivor Series 95 are both really good too. Hell a couple of the In Your Houses (most notebly 2 and 5) have a bunch of good stuff. I don't think WCW 2000 has one show that even comes close to as good as any of these shows.
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Sept 2, 2012 18:11:50 GMT -5
Yeah, WWF in 1995 had some problems. First, Diesel just didn't work as world champion. He had no real build to the title, they just threw it on him and in the process buried Backlund and Bret as well to some extent (Bret loses a 40 min. epic, yet Nash wins in 8 seconds?). Given Diesel's awesome 1994 Rumble it would be a given to have him clean house in a dominant Rumble win en route to facing Backlund at WM. That would have gotten him over.
The second problem ties into the first: The WWF had a horrible heel roster in 1995. After HBK turned face it got even worse. Check out this face side post WM: Diesel, Shawn, Razor, Bret, Taker, Bulldog, Luger, etc. The heels were maybe Sid, Owen, Jarrett, Yoko and whoever was in the Corporation (all of whom had no heat). Thus they got desperate for challengers and went with friggin Mabel and then turned Bulldog heel.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,959
|
Post by chazraps on Sept 3, 2012 0:27:42 GMT -5
Might I add, the actual Rumble match in '95 (outside of the awesome fact that Bulldog and Shawn went the distance) is possibly the worst Rumble ever broadcast?
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Sept 3, 2012 9:11:54 GMT -5
The sad thing bout KOTR 95 is it could have been a pretty good PPV, They had the talent.
Granted the ME was gonna suck but it's undercard could have held it together.
|
|
|
Post by wildojinx on Sept 3, 2012 9:36:55 GMT -5
Might I add, the actual Rumble match in '95 (outside of the awesome fact that Bulldog and Shawn went the distance) is possibly the worst Rumble ever broadcast? Worse than 1999?
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Sept 4, 2012 3:34:52 GMT -5
I'd say WWF95 was worse. It was boring and seemed like it was solely for little kids, like it is now. WCW 2000 was at least train wreck entertaining. How exactly is WWE aimed only at kids these days? I watch Raw and Smackdown every week and besides being rated PG I don't see how they're appealing to only kids. Lately it seems they're doing a great job of targeting every segment of they're audience. -no blood -no sex stuff like Bra and panties matches, bikini contests, etc -no risque language -cartoonish characters like Hornswaggle, Santino and his cobra, Brodus and his dancing friends -Vickie's still the biggest heel because kids identify her with a shrill mom or teacher -Lawler's ridiculous commentary -Cena is still the man -every time they show the crowd it's usually a shot of kids -their marketing -ignoring continuity -ignoring what older fans are booing or cheering -AJ as general manager I could go on and on. Maybe solely is the wrong word because are some storylines and angles aimed at adults. I should've said primarily kids. BTW, I'm older, so by kids I mean 21 and under.
|
|