I like the current product over the attitude Era.

[Cavs for Mavs Mafia]

It's seems to me pepole are letting nostalgia inflate thier opinion of the Attitude era. I still would take Austin and the Rock over than say Cena and Orton, but I think WWE today overall is significantly better.

WWE seems to finally value wrestling talent over size, and the midcard is based around in ring action instead of backstage toilet humor that hasn't aged well at all. Plus the midcard talent is given a chance to show off their ability due to the brand split and the addition of ECW and Superstars, which are treated much, much more seriously than Heat and Jakked ever were. I fimly believe this era will age much better than Attitude.

[Bubble Lead]

Better matches than Attitude Era for the most part...

BUT I prefer WWE from say, around Angle and the Radicalz debut until around 2004 far more than this era. Great match quality, characters I actually cared about and more interesting storylines.

Although this era has some good match quality as well, the storylines largely suck and I just dont care about the majority of the wrestlers. It just feels as if there is much less spark. As JR would say, I prefer some sizzle with my steak and this era has no sizzle for me.

[Brandon Walsh is Insane.]

Yeah, I do as well.

Although, my favorite time period is 89-90.

[manstis1804]

After reading the induction about the Rock tossing Davey Boy Smith in dog crap, today doesn't seem too bad does it? I agree with Bubble Lead though, the WWE was at it's best right from the Radicalz coming in until a little after the Invasion angle.

[Chiral]

I started watching in 2003, so I have more of a connection with this era than the Attitude Era.

[rnrk supports BLM]

I'm inclined to agree. We've got the same proportion of stupid crap to entertaining crap that the WWF/E's always had, only the current stupid crap is somewhat less puerile and tasteless than the Attitude Era's.

There's also a certain fun to these transitional, non-boom periods (like the New Generation), because you can see the bookers trying to throw ideas around to see what will stick.

What we're missing, of course, is a presence like Austin as a focal point to build the promotion around. Maybe in a couple years...

[Psychoblue]

For all of the greatness that the Attitude Era had, there were also PLENTY of moments that made you wonder just what in the world you were watching, and if you should tell your friends that you watch it.

The current era is very much like that, though things like Dog Kennel and Poop matches have thankfully been abolished. We did have that Pig Pen match this year, though.

["Gentleman" AJ Powell]

Nov 6, 2009 20:33:24 GMT -5 Chiral said:

I started watching in 2003, so I have more of a connection with this era than the Attitude Era.

Ditto. I started watching 2001-ish, so I can appreciate the attitude era, but the area around where I started watching has more of a connection to me.

[Trout Stratus]

I got a question, what do we call this era? Theres the Golden Age and the Attitude Era but no name for this one, or are we just gunna keep calling it the "This" Era?

[Above Average]

As someone who constantly sees the faults in the Attitude era.... the Attitude era was far superior to the drivel we're being served right now.

My opinion of course.

[comahan]

I like the wrestling better nowadays. But its severely lacking in interesting storylines, imo. I know that a lot of people would prefer just straight up "i want your belt!" short angles, but the dramatic aspect of wrestling draws me in more than the actual match part. I also always enjoyed the intertwining of storylines, getting multiple good stories out of every segment. Now its basically - one feud gets a segment. Segment ends. Move on to next feud, where they get a segment. Move on. Wash rinse and repeat. Im not the biggest fan of that style. So going by that, Id have to say I preferred 97-01 over what we get today.

["The Rated XXX Superstar" Jed]

Sorry, I still mark for the Attitude Era. I'm disgusted by how clean and PG wrestling is nowadays. Though I agree the wrestling is marginally better... on TNA. WWE's pretty much the same as its always been talent wise.

[Fade]

I'm come to realize as a Wrestling Fan, I prefer Characters I can invest in and Storylines that are riveting as opposed to a flat out great wrestling match.

And I love me some good Wrestling, which is why I got into the old ECW for a while, and years later ROH.

But yeah, consider me on the camp that loved the Attitude Era and I'm struggling to stay a fan during this era. Though I can easily see why people would favor this era. I'm just not one of them.

[Jiren]

yes in terms of match quality but Hell no for everyhting else.

This era has made me stop watching and I watched during 1995 & HHH reign of terror eras

[skiller]

Wrestling matches are great and all, and IMO a very important part of the wrestling business.

But if your characters aren't engaging, and you storylines a pedestrian. Why should I care about the wrestling? How am I supposed to get invested?

[barley96]

In the words of the most articulate woman I have ever seen...Really?
And in the words of the most articulate human being on this planet...DAMN!

[Schattenjager]

The product itself is better than the Attitude era. What sucks is current roster and the lame, repetitive storylines. I don't feel that the problem is the PG rating, I don't even think the PG rating is responsible for the lack of blood. It's just that the quality of writing is so bad right now it's embarrassing. And Raw is actually relying on B-Celebrity Guest Hosts to be the draws of its flagship show, instead of its wrestlers. Honestly, I don't remember one good guest host episode outside of the ones hosted by Ted DiBiase and Dusty Rhodes.

I must say that my favourite "era" in the WWE has to be SmackDown! around 2002-2003. It didn't have stupid Vince McMahon humour like a transvestite giving Mark Henry a blowjob and other attitude era crap, but it also wasn't totally aimed at kids, either. The main focus was in the actual wrestling and the roster was really good with Angle, Lesnar and the Undertaker in the main event with a strong upper midcard with the likes of Eddie, Benoit, Edge, Mysterio, Team Angle and the likes, as well the Cruiserweight division. It was a great time to be a WWE fan.

[forgottensinpwf]

Nov 6, 2009 19:38:50 GMT -5 Cavs for Mavs Mafia said:

It's seems to me pepole are letting nostalgia inflate thier opinion of the Attitude era. I still would take Austin and the Rock over than say Cena and Orton, but I think WWE today overall is significantly better.

WWE seems to finally value wrestling talent over size, and the midcard is based around in ring action instead of backstage toilet humor that hasn't aged well at all. Plus the midcard talent is given a chance to show off their ability due to the brand split and the addition of ECW and Superstars, which are treated much, much more seriously than Heat and Jakked ever were. I fimly believe this era will age much better than Attitude.

I also agree. I Can count more great matches this year alone than i can count them in 1998.

[Mozenrath]

Both have their upsides, but I prefer to live in the present. The past is what it is, but it holds pretty much nothing in the way of surprises, since you know how it played out already.

[forgottensinpwf]

Nov 7, 2009 3:30:05 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

Both have their upsides, but I prefer to live in the present. The past is what it is, but it holds pretty much nothing in the way of surprises, since you know how it played out already.

Pretty much. there's only so many times you can watch Foley fall off the cell until it actually becomes boring.