Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2019 21:04:08 GMT -5
Which decade, the 2000s or 2010s, was better for the WWE overall?
For me, it is hard to decide since they bottomed out in 2001 and haven't really recovered what they lost since then.
2000s had the rise of Cena, Batista, and Randy Orton, but we had to suffer with safer wrestling and Triple H dominating throughout the decade.
2010s had much better wrestling overall, but the product is very stale. Vince tries to replicate a Cena out of Roman but failed. Rise of social media pretty much made everyone involved in wrestlin less likeable.
If I had to choose, it would be the 2000s. At least we had 2 hour RAWs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2019 21:30:06 GMT -5
2000s for the years 2000 and 2001 (minus the Invasion) alone.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Dec 18, 2019 22:10:12 GMT -5
2000 and 2001 alone demolish anything they've done this entire decade.
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 77,810
|
Post by bob on Dec 18, 2019 22:15:04 GMT -5
this decade has been basically defined by a forced Roman push and super god unstoppable no-showing Lesnar champion, with a ray of hope like Daniel Bryan or Kofi winning the big one at WrestleMania in between
|
|
|
Post by Captain Patren Fenderbaum-X on Dec 18, 2019 22:19:11 GMT -5
2000 AND 2001 alone are better than anything of the 2010s without going into any detail.
|
|
nisidhe
Hank Scorpio
O Superman....O judge....O Mom and Dad....
Posts: 5,699
|
Post by nisidhe on Dec 18, 2019 22:25:15 GMT -5
Not even close, the first decade was far better.
The Rock, Austin, Goldberg, Lesnar, Cena, Orton, Undertaker, Kane, Big Show, the Smackdown Six, the first TLC matches, Trish and Lita, Chyna, DX, the revival of ECW, the return of Bret Hart to the WWE fold - even with the Benoit tragedy, the first decade felt bigger for WWE than this past one did.
After 2010 you started hearing more about the indies getting better paydays such that it became possible, for the first time in a very long time, to make more money on the independent circuit than in WWE. The NXT program did attract some talents but, as it turned out, the biggest draws were those who'd already made their mark elsewhere and were bringing their reputations with them. After some of those stars were called up to the main roster, we saw how carefully circumscribed everything is and that the brass ring doesn't really exist. There were some highlights - Summer of Punk, the Women's Revolution, Daniel Bryan's rise - but it was a slow decline throughout the decade that has led us where we are now.
|
|
|
Post by ChitownKnight on Dec 18, 2019 23:54:32 GMT -5
Even if you get rid of 2000 and 2001, the 2000s still had Eddie, Thuganomics Cena, Edge, the Hardy’s ect. Maybe it’s because I was a kid/teen at the time but stars felt much more larger than life and the storylines were more exciting to me. I think the 2010s started off good and Smackdown had some spurts of greatness, but the second half of the 10s def sucked
|
|
|
Post by autisticgeordie on Dec 19, 2019 1:17:15 GMT -5
The 2000s had the Smackdown Six. They win.
Not saying that 2010s didn't have good (or even great) points either, but it seems to have a lot more bad than the 2000s.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,321
|
Post by Bo Rida on Dec 19, 2019 1:18:57 GMT -5
The year 2000 until wm 17 was the best WWE has ever been. So I went 2000s. Yet NxT has been consistently good for most of its run so creatively had to consider it.
The overall bit of your question is interesting, Benoit alone makes 2000s a bad decade. Short-term profit wise they're better off in 2010s and in theory new markets and the PC put them in a good place. However I think at the expense of their long-term prospects. Think the brand is tarnished and some fans are gone for good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2019 8:13:01 GMT -5
I should have excluded 2000 and part of 2001.
Even then my vote is 2000s. Bigger feel in shows.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2019 10:52:46 GMT -5
The year 2000 is better than all the other years put together.
I want Vince to watch that year of wrestling and see where he went wrong.
|
|
|
Post by thegame415 on Dec 19, 2019 12:07:09 GMT -5
2000's easily.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Dec 19, 2019 14:55:23 GMT -5
2000's by a country mile. Even with how bad the Invasion storyline was, 2001 still had the amazing Wrestlemania X-Seven. And when one brand faltered, the other brand usually more than compensated.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,846
|
Post by chazraps on Dec 19, 2019 15:00:19 GMT -5
Hot take: the lows of the 2000s were lower than the lows of the 2010s.
Not that this will change anyone's opinion or should be the determining factor when deciding better, but let's keep in mind just how dreadful massive chunks of 2003, 2004 and 2009 were.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2019 15:42:59 GMT -5
Let's see, IMO:
2000 was better than 2010 2001 was better than 2011 2002 was better than 2012 2003 was better than 2013 2004 was better than 2014 2005 was better than 2015 2006 was better than 2016 2007 was better than 2017 2008 was better than 2018 2009 was better than 2019
2003/2013 was the closest I came to giving one to this decade. Both years had a lot of good and a lot of crap but I think in the end the highs of 2003 were higher than 2013's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2019 15:45:50 GMT -5
SOMEBODY STOP THE DAMN POLL!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2019 15:48:48 GMT -5
Cant wait this day 10 years later when I would make a similiar thread but adding the 2020s poll.
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 20,871
|
Post by agent817 on Dec 20, 2019 10:58:47 GMT -5
Let's not forget that 2008 was a pretty good year. This is late 2000s WWE we're talking about, especially when it's between 2007 and 2009, two years that are considered the dark ages of wrestling. Also, I thought that 2005 was a pretty underrated year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 11:56:55 GMT -5
I actually thought WWE was pretty damn good up until about the end of 2006/beginning of 2007. I don't know why people would hate on that era aside from maybe the Reign Of Terror and the Invasion being underwhelming.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 12:17:17 GMT -5
2000 alone was better than all the 2010’s combined.
As far as the rest of the 2000’s, there was Rock/Hogan, the rise of Brock/Cena/Batista/Orton who are all still relevant today, and while there was a lot of shit in that decade the top stars were far greater than the top stars today.
|
|