|
|
Post by quantum on Nov 8, 2009 15:16:18 GMT -5
The 80's were always a better era for wrestling IMO. It wasn;t over exposed and the PPVs really meant a lot as did all the belts and the card top to bottom as well as Tag Teams were made to look legit and tough. WCW 1996-1998 (late 98) then comes in second for me the rise of the NWO, The begging (and end as it did look certain by late 98 that WWF were pulling away and going to win the 'war) of The Monday Night War, the crusiers weights. first ever monthly PPV's which were solid top to bottom, 'live' Nitros with huge star vs star every week, then u8nfortuently after this time it got stale, The New Generation Era (1994/3-1996/7) then comes in for me new stars getting a push, first ever monthly WWF PPV's (even although the every early In Your House PPV;'s were pretty bad), wacky gimmicks (I like a lot of the 'wrestlecrap' gimmicks they were fun light hearted and entertaining), Hart feud, HBK/Hart feud and the in ring product was at an all time high in the WWF at that point, then 'Attitude Era' (1998-2001) comes in for me more blood and hardcore storyline. the biggest boom in wrestling history, Monday Night Wars, first ever big PPVs and 'live' shows every week,this era is not on the map compared to those other eras everything this era has the other eras had as well only this era is over exposed (which the Attitude Era was not at that point) and full of boring and bland stars which can;t touch the stars of New Generation, 80's, WC or Attitude Era this era is lacing in so much. It is personal opinion to say you prefer it but to say it is better is slightly deluded and no it;s not nostalgia. Certianly buy rates, attendance and ratings between now and Attitude Era (or 80's) when comapared speak for themselves. As does the fact that this is the first decade in 30 years we have not ended (or had) a wrestling boom.
|
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Nov 8, 2009 16:19:48 GMT -5
Better characters, storylines > better overall match quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrodietheSlayer on Nov 8, 2009 16:32:41 GMT -5
This era being better than the Attitude era.......No, just....no.
Let me put it this way......watching RAW in 1997-2001 used to be a CAN'T MISS EVENT, and the show used to just fly by.....to the point that when it ended, I would say, "S***! I have to wait another week to see what happens next!"
RAW post the CrapVasion has been increasingly forgettable.....good matches and moments here and there, but I'd find myself skipping through large chunks of the show to get to those moments. And having to sit through an entire RAW currently seems more like a chore than an event.
So.....no.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,706 
|
Post by The Ichi on Nov 8, 2009 17:25:27 GMT -5
The way I see it...
Attitude era: Better characters
Current era: Better wrestling
Better writing can go either way. Both had/have their share of the good and bad in that area.
|
|
|
|
Post by strykerdarksilence on Nov 8, 2009 17:45:23 GMT -5
I agree. For me this has been WWE's best year since 1992. Then you are in the vast minority there. I can assure you that bothers me not  I really love this year in WWE. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2009 18:28:54 GMT -5
Then you are in the vast minority there. I can assure you that bothers me not I really love this year in WWE. I don't know that I'd say it's as good as '92, but it's getting there. They're certainly going in the right direction. In my opinion, 1991-1992 was the best run the WWF ever had. I like the current product over the Attitude era also, but I just didn't care for the attitude era whatsoever. That was the only time I've ever been embarrassed for other people to see the wrestling I was watching. I don't mind mature themes at all, but the Attitude era was just the opposite - immature. I've heard lots of people talk about how they feel that aiming toward a younger audience is insulting, but that's how I felt about the Attitude era. When they fully embraced the trashy, redneck stigma that went along with wrestling, I have to say that it left a bad taste in my mouth that even the WWF thought that was what a "wrestling fan" wanted. No thanks, Vince. |
|
|
|
Post by strykerdarksilence on Nov 8, 2009 18:58:11 GMT -5
I can assure you that bothers me not I really love this year in WWE. I don't know that I'd say it's as good as '92, but it's getting there. They're certainly going in the right direction. In my opinion, 1991-1992 was the best run the WWF ever had. I like the current product over the Attitude era also, but I just didn't care for the attitude era whatsoever. That was the only time I've ever been embarrassed for other people to see the wrestling I was watching. I don't mind mature themes at all, but the Attitude era was just the opposite - immature. I've heard lots of people talk about how they feel that aiming toward a younger audience is insulting, but that's how I felt about the Attitude era. When they fully embraced the trashy, redneck stigma that went along with wrestling, I have to say that it left a bad taste in my mouth that even the WWF thought that was what a "wrestling fan" wanted. No thanks, Vince. Oh I totally agree with you. As I say, best since 92, it hasn't hit that stride yet, but things are clicking into place. 1992 had so many talents young, old and in their prime clicking at exactly the right time to produce a superb product, and the same I feel can be said of the current roster. I agree also that the Attitude era just went too far with so much stuff. For instance I find D-X far more entertaining now than when they were making exceptionally lewd jokes all the time. Things just feel more measured. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2009 19:08:22 GMT -5
I don't get the line about the midcard being better off in this era than the attitude era
I mean from what I remember the midcarders most of the time always had something to do, yeah sometimes it was crap but at least it was something. The midcard is practically non-existant
And it's not like most of the top guys back then were giants or anything - Austin, HBK, Rock, HHH, Mankind, Angle, Jericho not exactly hoses
Did the Attitude era have its problems? Course but one of them was not lack of excitement which is the main problem the current era has. It's nice, its ok, it has some high points but as a whole it is so bland
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorandborland on Nov 8, 2009 21:37:47 GMT -5
I don't get this better match quality stuff. Besides the odd John Morrison/Shawn Michaels/Undertaker matches who's really putting on clinics in the E?
|
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Diamond on Nov 8, 2009 22:03:13 GMT -5
I don't get this better match quality stuff. Besides the odd John Morrison/Shawn Michaels/Undertaker matches who's really putting on clinics in the E? Shelton Benjamin Rey Mysterio Chris Jericho Christian--> He actually got me to give ECW another chance. I've never seen the big deal with Morrison, I've never been a fan of Michaels, and Undertaker can barely move now. I started with WCW, so I do not have the same love for the Attitude Era you seen expressed on the net. However, I would gladly their approach to booking (esp. in 1998-2000) over what you see these days. Having interconnected storylines and characters defined beyond "He always does the right thing" or "He's a bad guy" was rather nice. The matches these days may be longer, but for the most part they're not any better than what you saw even 7 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by King Fox -1017 Bricksquad on Nov 9, 2009 0:15:35 GMT -5
Can't say I agree with T/S here.
Like someone said, every Monday night was must see TV. If you missed a week of Raw (or Nitro) you felt lost for the whole week.
|
|
Hogasm
Trap-Jaw
Gots that Thrillbilly Style
Posts: 392
|
Post by Hogasm on Nov 9, 2009 0:32:37 GMT -5
Can't say I agree with T/S here. Like someone said, every Monday night was must see TV. If you missed a week of Raw (or Nitro) you felt lost for the whole week. I missed the Nitro where Sid broke his leg. I did catch the infinite loop of replays the next week though. I was devastated. |
|
|
|
Post by Slammywinner on Nov 9, 2009 8:04:37 GMT -5
I'm willing to concede this point, but there are 2 things that make the Attitude era better in my opinion:
1. WCW and WWF could constantly surprise their fans, if not with their storylines, then with their talent raids. Now when some one goes from RAW to Smackdown, we roll our eyes and get a "Endz teh bran split cheezeburgzlulz!!!" thread.
2. Mainstream stars like Rock, Austin, and Mankind. Cena is the only guy to break through and he's only at a Mankind-ish level overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by quantum on Nov 9, 2009 9:22:28 GMT -5
This era being better than the Attitude era.......No, just....no. Let me put it this way......watching RAW in 1997-2001 used to be a CAN'T MISS EVENT, and the show used to just fly by.....to the point that when it ended, I would say, "S***! I have to wait another week to see what happens next!" RAW post the CrapVasion has been increasingly forgettable.....good matches and moments here and there, but I'd find myself skipping through large chunks of the show to get to those moments. And having to sit through an entire RAW currently seems more like a chore than an event. So.....no. Nicely said I haven;t watched WWE 'full time' now for a few years. Due to the fact WWE gives me no reason to watch like they did during 'Attitude Era' and Monday Night Wars. I can miss months at a time and come back and everything is still exactly the same putting on the same PPV month after month with the same card (only re shuffled)slightly doesn't help. 1991-1992 period was a transition period as well (which we eventually ended up in New Generation then Attitude Era from) and it was far and away better than todays product in every way. This decades failure to produce any real 'must watch stars' (like eg Austin, Rock, Hogan, Macho Man. HBK) is a massive downfall the only one that comes close to must watch who was made in this decade was Kurt Angle who as we all know is now in TNA. |
|
|
|
Post by diegorivera on Nov 9, 2009 20:29:29 GMT -5
I wouldn't call this a transitional period. This is pretty much the WWE now and for the immediate future. The transition ended around 2007 or so.
This decades failure to produce any real 'must watch stars' (like eg Austin, Rock, Hogan, Macho Man. HBK) is a massive downfall the only one that comes close to must watch who was made in this decade was Kurt Angle who as we all know is now in TNA.
I completely disagree. Lesnar, Guerrero, Benoit, RVD, Edge, Hardy, Punk and Cena all became huge stars this decade. None of them can compare to the big three, but no one else can compare to them either, including Savage and especially Micheals. Savage drew initially because he worked with and later against Hogan. He became a massive star and a draw all his own after that but even then frequently worked with or around Hogan, especially later in WCW. He was still never a draw on his own on any level close to Hogan.
As far as HBK goes, plain and simple, things tanked with him on top. Period. Say what you will about todays crop and the stars of this decade but under any of them the company has done much better than it did with Micheals. He is undoubtedly one of the best performers to ever step foot in a ring, but in comparison to the big three and even Cena, he was no draw. If none of the guys I mentioned are "must watch" stars then certainly Micheals wasn't/isn't either.
Ditto Angle. Angle drew because he worked frequently with the man, either Austin or Rock. Cena is the man. Maybe not as much of the man as those two, but a damn sight more than Angle. Again, Angle is a fantastic in ring performer. I don't bag on Cena's ability; I think he can perform more than adequately when he really tries, but even at his best, he's nothing to Angle as a wrestler. But as a draw Cena crushes Angle. Cena draws (or did draw, again, I think the guy has peaked,) on name alone. He sells tons of merchandise. He's pushed as a movie star, and while his movies perform terribly in theaters, the WWE Films division is actually profitable, mostly due to DVD performance, and Cena is a big reason for that.
Hell, look at Angle in TNA. For such a "must watch," star TNA ratings aren't much, are they? And it's not just the fact that TNA has less of a presence than WWE, (though that does contribute,) the company advertises their shows well and they're on a major cable network with Angle touted as one of their major players. But yet, how often does Impact push beyond that 1.0? Hogan had an immediate effect on ratings and media attention when he jumped to WCW. It cooled later on, but no doubt Hogan helped WCW become more of a competitor to the WWE. Eventually, he helped it overtake the E for a time. Angle hasn't done near as much for TNA. Don't get me wrong, he's helped and he's certainly had some great matches, but overall TNA is pretty much in the same position they've been in since 2005. Of course, now we can see that the Hogan acquisition by TNA is a far bigger deal...
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorandborland on Nov 9, 2009 21:29:02 GMT -5
I don't get this better match quality stuff. Besides the odd John Morrison/Shawn Michaels/Undertaker matches who's really putting on clinics in the E? Shelton Benjamin Rey Mysterio Chris Jericho Christian--> He actually got me to give ECW another chance. I've never seen the big deal with Morrison, I've never been a fan of Michaels, and Undertaker can barely move now. I'll give you Rey. Last notable Shelton match was like two years ago. Christian ain't nothing special in the slightest, and don't even get me started on Jericho. |
|
