Is 1995 a worse than 2003+ creatively for the company?

[segaz]

I know things have been less than enjoyable lately, but 1995 is always seen as one of the worst years for the company.

Is it still the worst compared to any year from 2003 onwards?

[Joe Neglia]

Apr 19, 2020 3:47:54 GMT -5 segaz said:

I know things have been less than enjoyable lately, but 1995 is always seen as one of the worst years for the company.

Is it still the worst compared to any year from 2003 onwards?

Creatively, the worst years were everything up through about 1979 or so. Prior to that, 95% of their content was strictly "I want to beat my opponent, I want to win titles" without much use for angles or gimmicks beyond a name.

Yeah, I know we're talking modern-ish era, but I had to be "that guy" on this one.

[thehottag]

Oh heck yeah, 1995 was the absolute dirt worst. We have had years where the Guest Hosts were agonising, where three hour Raws were putting you to sleep, & even times when the company was actively booking in spite of the fans. But at least you could always count on having some decent wrestling somewhere & the company was making bank. '95 didn't even have Bret Hart for most of the year.

[wildojinx]

Apr 19, 2020 3:54:12 GMT -5 thehottag said:

Oh heck yeah, 1995 was the absolute dirt worst. We have had years where the Guest Hosts were agonising, where three hour Raws were putting you to sleep, & even times when the company was actively booking in spite of the fans. But at least you could always count on having some decent wrestling somewhere & the company was making bank. '95 didn't even have Bret Hart for most of the year.

Bret was all over the tv in 1995, I think you mean 1996.

[thehottag]

Apr 19, 2020 10:18:55 GMT -5 wildojinx said:

Bret was all over the tv in 1995, I think you mean 1996.

Couldn't remember whether he was gone after 'Mania XI or XII. Either way, still sticking with '95.

[thecrusherwi]

I tend to give them a bit of a pass in 1995, because they really were trying. They were pushing new guys, new PPVs, they reformatted some of their shows, they created new match types. It just didn’t work. Some of the post-WCW years have felt like they were going through the motions. They clearly weren’t in 1995. They tried a ton of new things - they just mostly fell flat.

[KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!!]

Apr 19, 2020 3:53:33 GMT -5 Joe Neglia said:

Apr 19, 2020 3:47:54 GMT -5 segaz said:

I know things have been less than enjoyable lately, but 1995 is always seen as one of the worst years for the company.

Is it still the worst compared to any year from 2003 onwards?

Creatively, the worst years were everything up through about 1979 or so. Prior to that, 95% of their content was strictly "I want to beat my opponent, I want to win titles" without much use for angles or gimmicks beyond a name.

Yeah, I know we're talking modern-ish era, but I had to be "that guy" on this one.

You forgot the 5 minute headlocks! Central to any storyline in that WWWF era.

[fw91]

There was a lot of good stuff in Ruthless Agression. Really don't think 2003-Present is a fair or accurate benchmark.

["Trickster Dogg" James Jesse]

Apr 19, 2020 11:55:23 GMT -5 fw91 said:

There was a lot of good stuff in Ruthless Agression. Really don't think 2003-Present is a fair or accurate benchmark.

I think 2002-2004 still had a lot of the post-Attitude stink on it, less so 2004 and more so 2002 and 2003: HLA, the Miller Cat Fight women, Torrie Wilson and Dawn Marie fighting over Al Wilson, Katie Vick, the NWO tries to kill the Rock with a big rig truck, Austin tempts Scott Hall with alcohol, etc.

2005, with the ascendancy of Batista and Cena to the top of the card, felt like WWE (finally) shifting into a new direction, even if there were more post-Attitude hijinks to come.

If 1995 is the worst, it's also due to how bad the WWF was doing financially at the time. It's the one-two of creative bankruptcy and financial instability, when the latter makes it difficult to make things better in the former. Which is why I'd probably say a year like 2009 is probably worse than 1995 because the money and the talent were there, but no amount of money could have made the product interesting or exciting.

[Deleted]

Apr 19, 2020 11:55:23 GMT -5 fw91 said:

There was a lot of good stuff in Ruthless Agression. Really don't think 2003-Present is a fair or accurate benchmark.

SD was at least mostly really good in 2003.

[auph10imitated]

I always say that while creative was absolutely horrible in 1995, they had a very talented (albeit small) roster and had everyone been booked in different places with cooler edgier gimmicks then 1995 could have been absolutely fantastic. Such a big shame.

A roster that at one point had Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Undertaker, Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, X-Pac, Triple H, Owen Hart, British Bulldog, Lex Luger, Jeff Jarrett, Bam Bam Bigelow, Kane, Goldust, Chris Candido, Shane Douglas, Carl Ouellette, Sid Vicious, Hakushi, Yokozuna, Road Dogg, Rikishi, Mr Ass, Alundra Blayze & Bull Nakano.

That’s a tight roster, had they all been booked creatively to thier strengths it could have been a very strong year.

[Feargus McReddit]

Apr 19, 2020 12:07:43 GMT -5 "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse said:

Apr 19, 2020 11:55:23 GMT -5 fw91 said:

There was a lot of good stuff in Ruthless Agression. Really don't think 2003-Present is a fair or accurate benchmark.

I think 2002-2004 still had a lot of the post-Attitude stink on it, less so 2004 and more so 2002 and 2003: HLA, the Miller Cat Fight women, Torrie Wilson and Dawn Marie fighting over Al Wilson, Katie Vick, the NWO tries to kill the Rock with a big rig truck, Austin tempts Scott Hall with alcohol, etc..

Yeah, as someone watching at the time, it all felt like a really desperate attempt to get that mainstream casual fan that made the AE get high ratings to come back and it really wasn’t clicking at all.

It was around the time when Batista and Cena won the titles that the realized “Wait, we could have KIDS watch this stuff with their parents” where the shift happened and kind of stabilized things for a bit.

[jivesoulbrah]

Apr 19, 2020 14:28:08 GMT -5 @dax said:

Apr 19, 2020 11:55:23 GMT -5 fw91 said:

There was a lot of good stuff in Ruthless Agression. Really don't think 2003-Present is a fair or accurate benchmark.

SD was at least mostly really good in 2003.

I actually felt like Smackdown is 2003 was by far it’s worst year in history.

[chazraps]

Apr 20, 2020 17:28:57 GMT -5 jivesoulbrah said:

Apr 19, 2020 14:28:08 GMT -5 @dax said:

SD was at least mostly really good in 2003.

I actually felt like Smackdown is 2003 was by far it’s worst year in history.

Worse than 2004?

[jivesoulbrah]

Apr 20, 2020 17:30:07 GMT -5 chazraps said:

Apr 20, 2020 17:28:57 GMT -5 jivesoulbrah said:

I actually felt like Smackdown is 2003 was by far it’s worst year in history.

Worse than 2004?

Good point, I’d still call it worse but yeah 2004 was terrible. From what I can recall 2003 through 2006 was pretty brutal.

[Deleted]

Apr 19, 2020 10:26:31 GMT -5 thehottag said:

Apr 19, 2020 10:18:55 GMT -5 wildojinx said:

Bret was all over the tv in 1995, I think you mean 1996.

Couldn't remember whether he was gone after 'Mania XI or XII. Either way, still sticking with '95.

Bret Hart got stuck working with a delusional presidential candidate, a dentist, a self proclaimed "King", and a pirate for much of 1995. I think that's almost the same as being absent.

[Milkman Norm]

At least 1995 you had the greatness that was King Mabel. So 2003 was clearly worse.

[rocket]

Apr 20, 2020 17:30:07 GMT -5 chazraps said:

Apr 20, 2020 17:28:57 GMT -5 jivesoulbrah said:

I actually felt like Smackdown is 2003 was by far it’s worst year in history.

Worse than 2004?

It's like both shows weren't allowed to be good at the same time.

[nisidhe]

1995 sucked primarily because it was painfully clear that they were trying to bury Bret and instead stuff Diesel and Michaels down our throats. The feuds with Hakushi, Jean-Pierre LaFitte and a bunch of schlubs (Waylon Mercy and Salvetore Sincere among them) felt like they were insulting him for having the temerity to be organically over.

Michaels was being Michaels to boot - unreliable with a title and insufferable in the back when made to chase for them.

[ThankGodForSidJustice]

I guess it depends on the year after 2003. I would still say 1995 overall was the worst year in company history however going just from a creative standpoint I would say there was worst years in times. 2012, 2015, and 2019 all come to mind in particular as being years where WWE's lazy writing and flaws ca,e to the forefront to the point where I actually needed to take breaks at points during those years. Namely not protecting champions enough, not presenting anyone other then their half a dozen chosen ones as stars, and unimaginative finishes (If I had a dime for every distraction rollup finish since 2011 I'm sure I would be a billionaire right now).

1995 had a lot of crap gimmicks as that was the peak of every one has to have another occupation phase. However at least it seemed like they cared which I can't really say for the same with WWE since 2003. Say what you want about Mabel or Kama or Issac Yankem but they at least made them out to be important and made them seem like guys who could be dangerous and threats so when they fought Diesel or Undertaker or Bret Hart you bought it.