PDA

View Full Version : Did the Attitude Era Ruin Wrestling?



The Law
April 30th, 2013, 3:17 PM
So this is a spin-off of a discussion in the Ramble thread. Basically, we were talking about Mick Foley's Hell in a Cell bump and whether it was ultimately a good thing or a bad thing for wrestling. More broadly, was the Attitude Era ultimately a good thing for wrestling?

During the Attitude Era there were no constraints. If they thought something might get one more person to tune into a segment, they did it. This meant nudity and vulgarity on television, guys taking multiple chairshots to the head in random midcard matches on Raw, titles changing hands constantly for no particular reason other than to drum up interest. Guys falling off ladders, cages, being put through tables. All of this stuff happening regularly, not as any kind of special attraction. That was fun in the moment, but it wasn't really sustainable. Once you've fallen off a 16 foot cage, there's no topping it. You can't fall off a 20 foot cage the next week. Once the Kat shows her tits on PPV, she can't come back and show her snatch on the next show.

I won't go as far as to say that the Attitude Era "ruined" wrestling, or that this down period in wrestling is entirely because of the hot-shotting of the Attitude Era. But I think there's a solid argument that it has something to do with it. Your thoughts?

Cewsh
April 30th, 2013, 3:28 PM
Here's the full discussion up to now:


BUT HE FELL OFF A FUCKING CELL CEWSH YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD.


WHICH WAS ALSO STUPID AND HURT THE WRESTLING BUSINESS


No it didn't. That's something you've imagined. It's a great moment that's in EVERY FUCKING VIDEO PACKAGE WWE HAS DONE SINCE THEN.


Interesting point of discussion actually. It's a fucking amazing moment without any doubt, but if you could go back and make the decision over whether it happened or not, would you and why?


It killed the Hell in a Cell concept. It created an arms race for bigger and more dangerous spots that shortened several careers and it gave wrestling fans entirely the wrong idea of what a great match is. Just because it made for great video package material doesn't mean Edge is any less retired 10 years early because of the spot race that happened afterwards.


I'm glad people aren't taking a dozen unprotected chairshots to the noggin anymore, but the sports columnists who piss and moan about that frequently turn a blind eye to concussions in football. Even then, football players make millions of dollars a year. Either get out at a reasonable time or fuck off.


Very good point, but to COUNTER THAT YOU FUCKING KNOB (KIDDING ON), Do you think guys like the Hardyz, E and C, the Dudleys, and even guys like Jericho/Benoit/Angle would've gotten over to the extent that they did without some massive fucking spots that came directly on the back of the HIAC?


Yeah, that argument you're making is miles away from what we're actually discussing here. I'm talking about people jumping off of shit, and in general creating spots so big that it made anything smaller seem lesser by comparison. And then you get shit like Edge spearing Jeff Hardy 20 feet out of the air. Stuff that looks unbelievably spectacular, but isn't sustainable.

The Attitude Era raised the bar on violence and danger so high that it couldn't be followed. And WWE has spent a decade just trying to reteach fans what professional wrestling actually is. That didn't start with Foley jumping off the cage, but that is by far the biggest influence any one event has had on what followed.


Well Jericho, Angle and Benoit didn't get over because of those kinds of spots, even if they did do them on occasion. And I think they would have had an easier time getting over if the people in the segments before and after theirs weren't falling 50 feet off of ladders and setting each other on fire. It's hard to make actual wrestling seem important when all of that other stuff is making it look silly and meaningless. That's why guys like Benoit and Guerrero had to wait until the audience was reeducated before fans realized what they had in them.

I have no doubt that the Dudley Boys and Edge and Christian would have been successful, though not nearly AS successful. They were heel teams with great mic work. Vince wouldn't have pushed them anywhere near as hard, so their careers would have suffered by comparison, and the Hardy Boyz would have never gotten where they did without this stuff. But then, maybe the Hardy Boyz wouldn't be hooked on drugs (Jeff) and hardly able to walk (Matt).


A "great match" is subjective. It's possible to enjoy Ricky Steamboat and Mick Foley at the same time. Is it even possible to pinpoint what hurt Edge's neck? You almost act as if injuries didn't occur in wrestling before Foley started doing his stuntman feats. Foley wasn't responsible for anyone else's fate but his own. Blame the desire to be a big name in a crowded field by taking ridiculous chances before placing blame on one guy.


I picked Jericho, Angle and Benoit because while they were some of the best actual wrestlers and most technically gifted, I don't actually think they would've gotten to the levels they did without doing some more 'extreme' stuff, like the moonsaults off cages, TLC matches, Slams through glass, diving chair shots and the like. I think fans weren't really giving these guys total acceptance until they got a few 'holy shit' moments from them.

However, In typing that, I'm just realising that instead of countering your argument im actually reinforcing it because the fanst stupid fucking expectiations caused by Foley LEAD TO THAT FUCKING HELL SLARE ITS BEEN A LONG DAY LAD.


The WWE haven't been spending 10 years re-educating fans. Lucky if it's five years.

There's been some absolutely brutal spots, lots of blood, lots of gimmicks and lots of complete nonsense since the Attitude Era. Obviously nothing quite as violent or dangerous but it's not like they've eradicated it since 2001.


I don't blame Mick Foley for doing what he did. It was just a rotten thing that hurt the business in ways he couldn't have forseen.


Michaels and the "first" ladder match also had a huge effect on younger wrestlers. Who didn't want to try and top that?


Yep. They had to do those things because that was the time they wrestled in. But if Kurt Angle debuted today, he'd never have to do any moonsaults off of cages to get over. Vince would stab him if he even considered it.



Of course not. But they've made it a rare spectacle instead of letting it be the expectation. Triple H did an interview once where he said that they needed to teach fans that someone could win with a bodyslam again so that they could begin to build back to the complicated stuff again. They couldn't top what had been done by guys like Foley, so over the 10 years following, they slowly scaled it all back. These days you never see anything remotely like what used to happen in those days, danger wise. So when something like the Undertaker leaping over the top rope happens, it means 10 times more than it ever would have at the time. It was a gradual process that has a clear imprint from 2002 on.


He definitely had a hand in this too. He began the race to see who could top who, and Foley took it to a place that people destroyed themselves to follow.


Also to say it hurt the business is flat out wrong. You claim him diving off the cell had a big impact on what followed, but what followed is the most successful period in wrestling history. A period that ended with WWE buying out the competition and becoming the only dominant force in the industry. A period which created a generation of fans who still tune in today.


A period which was followed by a 10 year drought in both interest and quality, and which has seen more wrestler deaths, early retirements and general disillusionment with the business than any other I could name.

It certainly helped the business in the short term. But I would argue that it hurt worse in the long.


I will guarantee WWE would have been just as popular during the Attitude Era if Foley hadn't been thrown off the Cell. That was a great moment, but it's a drop in the ocean compared to everything that was going on to draw people in at the time: Austin, Austin vs. McMahon, Undertaker, Kane, DX, Rock, Foley. Crazy stuff happening every week on Raw. Engaging stories performed by great wrestlers.

If Foley doesn't fly off the Cell he probably wouldn't have become as big a star. On the other hand, he could have died doing that spot. I don't know what effect that spot had on his longterm health and it probably pales in comparison to all the other damage he did to his body, but it definitely didn't help. How many careers do you think were shortened by guys trying to top that? How many injuries and how much missed time? How many guys got hooked on pain pills, or damaged their brains?

I saw something Jim Cornette said the other night: that every period of hot-shotting in a particular territory subsequently led to a longer period of stagnation, because there's no way to top the untoppable. Once you've had a flaming tables and chairs and AIDS-infected hypodermic needles, there's not really anyway to entertain people with basic wrestling matches and stories. Is that what happened to wrestling? Did the pressure from the Monday Night Wars result in so much hot shotting that they wrecked wrestling because fans can't be entertained by anything other than constant title changes, swerves, unprotected chair shots to the head, and whatever other bullshit creative can dream up? This might deserve its own thread.


I don't agree necessarily, but I will accept retirements and disillusionment, but I don't think popping wrestler deaths in there is on at all, after all a lot of those deaths stem from habits/life decisions that wrestlers took years previous (Davey Boy, Rude, Pillman, Eddie etc)


Nobody died because Mick Foley jumped off a cell. Yeah there's been early retirements but nobody was forced to follow Mick's lead. Nobody knows how Edge did his neck in (although hasn't he intimated that it was too many spears rather than too many massive spots) or how other people have become so banged up. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest people trying to follow Mick's example resulted in them overdosing or roiding themselves into oblivion is there?

Yeah there was a real lack of quality following on from the Attitude Era. But as you're arguing, lack of mad spots doesn't equal lack of quality. The lack of quality came from immensely poor booking and a lack of talent coming through. The Attitude Era was not only unique in terms of violence etc, but in terms of the sheer amount of talent. When you have people like Foley retiring, Austin packing it in, Rock going off to do movies...they're almost impossible to replace. Plus there has never been the same amount of talent ready to break through into the main event as there was back then. In fact I'd argue right now is the first time since the Attitude Era that the WWE has been properly stacked with talent.


Definitely not sure I agree with that. I'd argue that the roster immediately after the Attitude Era was better. And in 2005... up until like 2009. It's all about how you use the talent at your disposal. They made the most of everyone in the Attitude Era. The quality of wrestling on an almost weekly between 2005 and 2009 is probably unparalleled in WWE's history for me too - probably as a result of the quality of the roster.

Cewsh
April 30th, 2013, 3:30 PM
I think there is 10 times more main event potential on the roster now than there ever was in the Attitude Era. It's not even close.

Andy
April 30th, 2013, 3:33 PM
I think there is 10 times more main event potential on the roster now than there ever was in the Attitude Era. It's not even close.

I would agree there is more, not that much though. But if you ask anyone why this potential isn't being realised, I don't think anyone would blame the lack of mad spots or blood or anything. The Attitude Era was absolutely superb in building feuds for all their stars and all their titles. WWE just don't seem capable of that at the moment.

Jimmy Zero
April 30th, 2013, 3:34 PM
I think there is 10 times more main event potential on the roster now than there ever was in the Attitude Era. It's not even close.

Well, that's because there are more people in WWE now than there were then.

I also don't agree that there's a huge chasm between the main event potential now, and then.

Like Andy just said, there were interesting things going on in the undercard during the Attitude Era, something that is non-existant nowadays. It made people actually care about guys once they did reach the main event. Maybe there are more guys with potential now, but very little of it is being realized.

The Law
April 30th, 2013, 3:39 PM
It's interesting to look back on the roster and see how thin is was in 1998-1999. In 2000 they brought in Angle, Tazz, Benoit, Saturn, Malenko, Guerrero and things were substantially boosted. Prior to that, look at who they had (Post-Wrestlemania 14):

Main guys: Austin, Undertaker, Mankind, Kane, Rock (became a main eventer at the end of 1998)
Midcard: Triple H (became main eventer in summer 1999), X-Pac, Val Venis, D'Lo Brown, Godfather, Jeff Jarrett, Owen Hart, Edge, Boss Man, Test, Shamrock, Outlaws, Road Warriors, Big Show, Jericho

What stands out is how many guys of little talent got huge reactions: X-Pac, Val Venis, Godfather, and Road Dogg all got bigger pops in the midcard than most of their main event guys get today. There's some talent there in the midcard, but most of them weren't fully formed at the time. The roster wasn't great, but the overall product was so good (and the guys at the top so amazing) that it didn't really matter.

Ringo
April 30th, 2013, 3:40 PM
You could certainly make comparisons to the downward spiral that puro found itself in during the same period as well. In All Japan during the 90s the bar had been repeatedly set so ridiculously high that they resorted to crazy head drops and a more immediately eye catching but ultimately cheaper imitation of the style in attempts to "top the untoppable" - arguably climaxing with the famous Misawa/Kobashi match in 2003. After that, where could they go? Three of the biggest stars in NOAH were probably a couple of awkward bumps away from death (which would eventually occur in 2009 of course). New Japan emerged half way through the decade as the top company and has gradually developed a main event style more in line with WWE's. This ignores a lot of other stuff - but it does further the evidence that continually pushing limits to entertain and wow fans inevitably peaks and becomes unsustainable.

Cewsh
April 30th, 2013, 3:41 PM
I would agree there is more, not that much though. But if you ask anyone why this potential isn't being realised, I don't think anyone would blame the lack of mad spots or blood or anything. The Attitude Era was absolutely superb in building feuds for all their stars and all their titles. WWE just don't seem capable of that at the moment.

I don't feel like you and I are on the same page about what I was saying about spots. You want to defend the Attitude Era, and that's great, there's a lot of good to be said for it, but do you think it was more a positive or a negative what Foley did?

Jimmy Zero
April 30th, 2013, 3:44 PM
It's interesting to look back on the roster and see how thin is was in 1998-1999. In 2000 they brought in Angle, Tazz, Benoit, Saturn, Malenko, Guerrero and things were substantially boosted. Prior to that, look at who they had (Post-Wrestlemania 14):

Main guys: Austin, Undertaker, Mankind, Kane, Rock (became a main eventer at the end of 1998)
Midcard: Triple H (became main eventer in summer 1999), X-Pac, Val Venis, D'Lo Brown, Godfather, Jeff Jarrett, Owen Hart, Edge, Boss Man, Test, Shamrock, Outlaws, Road Warriors, Big Show, Jericho

What stands out is how many guys of little talent got huge reactions: X-Pac, Val Venis, Godfather, and Road Dogg all got bigger pops in the midcard than most of their main event guys get today. There's some talent there in the midcard, but most of them weren't fully formed at the time. The roster wasn't great, but the overall product was so good (and the guys at the top so amazing) that it didn't really matter.

There was nothing little about Val Venis!

Defrost
April 30th, 2013, 3:49 PM
The War between the WWF and WCW and the aftermath did more damage than the style of work or crash tv style booking. If WCW or to a lesser extent ECW were still around Vince would not be able to get away with a lot of the excesses that he can as a monopoly.

Andy
April 30th, 2013, 3:56 PM
I don't feel like you and I are on the same page about what I was saying about spots. You want to defend the Attitude Era, and that's great, there's a lot of good to be said for it, but do you think it was more a positive or a negative what Foley did?

Yeah I was just making a wider point about the Attitude Era. I think Foley jumping off the cage was a positive thing, to me there's no doubt about that. BUT, like someone said, I don't think the incident in itself is that important. What I would say it did was put over Undertaker as a monster and put over Foley as a lunatic. It's an important part of Taker's career and Taker (in my opinion) is the greatest wrestler of all time. And it allowed Foley to put himself in a great position and going forward, put others in a great position. Rock, Trips and even Orton got massive boosts by beating him because of the reputation he had following on from that match. And they're three of the biggest stars the company has ever had.

In saying that though, I would argue that many of the mental spots we saw after that would've happened anyway. WWE were looking for an edge over the competition so this sort of thing was inevitable in my opinion. Guys like Tazz and the Dudleys were brought across from ECW and brought that extreme gimmick with them. I have no doubt that stuff like TLC would've happened, as well as other mental matches.

JP
April 30th, 2013, 4:01 PM
WHICH WAS ALSO STUPID AND HURT THE WRESTLING BUSINESS

Are you drunk?


It killed the Hell in a Cell concept.

Or stoned?


Obviously tongue in cheek, but to claim it killed HiaC is utterly mental mate. Especially given the amount of superb HiaC matches we've seen after the KotR 98. And in which not one bump has been anywhere near as dangerous, not even Foley/HHH.

You sound like Ric Flair on Foley before he started to get him.

Defrost
April 30th, 2013, 4:04 PM
It nowhere near killed Hell in a Cell. That idiotic Hell in a Cell ppv killed Hell in a Cell.

JP
April 30th, 2013, 4:04 PM
I think there is 10 times more main event potential on the roster now than there ever was in the Attitude Era. It's not even close.

Austin
Rock
Big Show
HHH
Angle
Jericho
Benoit
Undertaker
Kane
Foley

There's 10, so go name me a 100 for now.

OKGO!

Andy
April 30th, 2013, 4:05 PM
It nowhere near killed Hell in a Cell. That idiotic Hell in a Cell ppv killed Hell in a Cell.

Spot on.

JP
April 30th, 2013, 4:05 PM
It nowhere near killed Hell in a Cell. That idiotic Hell in a Cell ppv killed Hell in a Cell.

Quoted for absolute truth.

But damaged, rather than killed.

turdpower
April 30th, 2013, 4:05 PM
The attitude era did ruin wrestling - for fans.

It'll never live up to it.

Three hours of Raw I fast forward through nowadays. I remember when I used to ENJOY watching 2 hours.

chatty
April 30th, 2013, 4:07 PM
Ok, here's my thoughts from an entirely personal perspective.

The Attitude era was immense, the match quality wasn't great (especially watching back), they didn't create a boat load of stars and people's careers were probably shortened a lot during the process, high risks were took and high prices were paid but damn was it exciting. I mean the crowds were absolutely pumped, you had guys like say Kurgan getting nearly as good a pop as guys like Cena do these days, the atmosphere was always top notch, the surprise factor was ever present, taboos were broken and the audience of that era completely got the whole thing and connected.

Sometimes they crossed the line and some of the angles were deplorable, that's definitely true, the emphasis on soap opera like stories effected match quality as well, especially watching back and it certainly had a weak overall roster (again especially looking backwards) but at the end of the day at that time everybody wanted to tune in, it was entertaining and it told as its cross over appeal went through the roof.

I actually enjoyed the period just after better, around 2000-2003 where I think the match quality was damn near the best it ever was, the roster was stacked, again near as good as it ever was and more wrestlers were genuinely over (maybes not as much as the 80s when any old gimmick got you over) but at that point the amount of main event level wrestlers was really high.

The Cena era pails in comparrison, its dull, its predictable and its safe as hell, it has no cross over apal unless they bring the atttude(ish) era guys back and all the other points aren't that much better than the AE when you look at them closely:

Match quality - yeah its higher than 99 but not on par with 02 - probably somewhere in the middle - most matches are easy to predict and follow a very similar structure each time whilst being overdone to the extent you wouldn't even be surprised if the same guys wrestled the same match for a whole month straight.

Stars - well their is a lot more potential but its still the same guys on top and the fact that they rely on part timers shows this. In eight years they have created one other star in CM Punk.

Injuries and long lasting damage - yeah thats much better but I think that has more to do with the Guerrero/Benoit deaths than it has to do with the era of wrestling, if they hadn't happened I think we would be looking at a different landscape of wrestling (although Cena would still be the main man).

turdpower
April 30th, 2013, 4:07 PM
I think there is 10 times more main event potential on the roster now than there ever was in the Attitude Era. It's not even close.

Of the same standard as those?

No.

Quality over quantity. That was the attitude era.

Cewsh
April 30th, 2013, 4:07 PM
Are you drunk?



Or stoned?


Obviously tongue in cheek, but to claim it killed HiaC is utterly mental mate. Especially given the amount of superb HiaC matches we've seen after the KotR 98. And in which not one bump has been anywhere near as dangerous, not even Foley/HHH.

You sound like Ric Flair on Foley before he started to get him.

I think it's completely fair to say that it killed the Hell in a Cell concept, because I remember very vividly that the reaction to the next 4 or 5 Cell matches was basically, (yeah, it was good, but nobody came off the top.) That was the single biggest thing people seemed to hold against Jericho/Triple, the lack of ridiculously huge spots, and the Cell match became defined by that, rather than the barbarism that was supposed to be taking place inside.

To some extent that was fixed, and the match remains a limited draw, but they had to basically turn it into a regular cage match these days, so high are the expectations around anything that takes place outside.

I don't hate Mick Foley, and I've loved plenty of his work. But the Hell in a Cell match has rankled with me for years, because it has been blown up into mythical proportions.

chatty
April 30th, 2013, 4:08 PM
Also if the Attitude Era didn;t come about then WCW would probably have won and Hogan and Nash would still be trading the title now.

Ringo
April 30th, 2013, 4:08 PM
What Defrost said. I see what Cewsh is getting at - it was impossible to "live up" to Foley's KOTR '98 bumps without seriously risking the health of wrestlers. But the after that match the gimmick had more appeal than any match concept had had for a long time. Foley/Trips HIAC was a big draw, the 6-man too and I'm guessing Brock/Taker and Nash/Trips did decent buyrates too?

Matches like Sheamus/Orton, Taker/Punk, Henry/Orton, Punk/Ryback... none of which needed to be inside the Cell, have tainted the concept's appeal.

chatty
April 30th, 2013, 4:09 PM
Also the first ever HIAC took a big bump in Michaels which was considered pretty crazy at the time - that meant that the concept pretty much dared anyone to push the limits from the offset.

Cewsh
April 30th, 2013, 4:10 PM
What Defrost said. I see what Cewsh is getting at - it was impossible to "live up" to Foley's KOTR '98 bumps without seriously risking the health of wrestlers. But the after that match the gimmick had more appeal than any match concept had had for a long time. Foley/Trips HIAC was a big draw, the 6-man too and I'm guessing Brock/Taker and Nash/Trips did decent buyrates too?

Matches like Sheamus/Orton, Taker/Punk, Henry/Orton, Punk/Ryback... none of which needed to be inside the Cell, have tainted the concept's appeal.

A better summary of my point would be to say that Foley's fall killed what Hell in a Cell could have been. As in, a match where people tune in for reasons other than to see somebody die.

Andy
April 30th, 2013, 4:10 PM
I'd point out that to me the Attitude Era was from around late-1997 to WM17. And the match quality for the second half of that period was absolutely superb.

Ringo
April 30th, 2013, 4:11 PM
I think it's completely fair to say that it killed the Hell in a Cell concept, because I remember very vividly that the reaction to the next 4 or 5 Cell matches was basically, (yeah, it was good, but nobody came off the top.) That was the single biggest thing people seemed to hold against Jericho/Triple, the lack of ridiculously huge spots, and the Cell match became defined by that, rather than the barbarism that was supposed to be taking place inside.

True, I forgot about that match. I usually do.

And I do recall people moaning that it was "missing something" - yeah I wonder what.

turdpower
April 30th, 2013, 4:11 PM
I think it's completely fair to say that it killed the Hell in a Cell concept, because I remember very vividly that the reaction to the next 4 or 5 Cell matches was basically, (yeah, it was good, but nobody came off the top.) That was the single biggest thing people seemed to hold against Jericho/Triple, the lack of ridiculously huge spots, and the Cell match became defined by that, rather than the barbarism that was supposed to be taking place inside.

To some extent that was fixed, and the match remains a limited draw, but they had to basically turn it into a regular cage match these days, so high are the expectations around anything that takes place outside.

I don't hate Mick Foley, and I've loved plenty of his work. But the Hell in a Cell match has rankled with me for years, because it has been blown up into mythical proportions.

Why were peoples reactions in brackets? ;)

Anyway, he came off the top again against Triple H at NWO 2000.

Cewsh
April 30th, 2013, 4:17 PM
Why were peoples reactions in brackets? ;)

Anyway, he came off the top again against Triple H at NWO 2000.

Haha, I made like 5 typos in there. Obviously, I'm very worked up about this.

And that's true he did, though that one was obviously very carefully staged with the collapsing ring to cushion his fall.

turdpower
April 30th, 2013, 4:19 PM
I sensed that!

Well the first one must surely have been fairly well staged. if he misses the announce table he's a bit fucked.

Cewsh
April 30th, 2013, 4:21 PM
The funny thing is that he pretty much DID miss the announce table. He was supposed to hit it flush for cushioning, and he just hit the lip and then the ground.

The Law
April 30th, 2013, 4:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBcWARJ_LNg

What an insane thing to do. How could Vince and company let him do that? It's very easy for him to miss the table. If he misses the table, there's a very good chance of him suffering a serious injury (broken back, broken neck, internal injuries) or just straight-up dying. He also could have not rotated all the way over and landed on his head, which would have fucked him over in various ways. Did they take the monitors out of the table? I'd never thought about it before, but it seems like they'd have to. Falling onto TVs would make the bump even more dangerous.

And then they let him finish the match. Despite the fact that he had obviously suffered a concussion. Of course, we didn't know then what we know now about head injuries, but letting someone go back out there and wrestle after that's happened to them is staggeringly irresponsible. Especially fighting 16 feet in the air.

Foley says that McMahon came up to him afterwards and said something like "I love you Mick, but promise me you'll never do that again." Is that meant to imply that he didn't know they were going to do that spot? I really have a hard time believing that something that major wouldn't be cleared with Vince. It would just be commonsense that the owner of the company would have input into a planned spot that risked the life of one of his employees.

But this was the thought process that prevailed at the time: if it will sell one more ticket, or get one more person to tune in, do it. No regard to long-term thinking, or the health of the performers, or good taste. That's what a ratings war will do for you.

Jaymz
April 30th, 2013, 5:01 PM
I think the attitude era was an inevitability based on the culture at the time to take everything to it's limits, so even if Foley hadn't thrown himself from the cage, then we'd probably be talking about another superstar who would have done something equally as dangerous.

As for ruining wrestling... I don't buy it. The Attitude Era wasn't a one trick pony with people throwing themselves from cages week in, week out. There was some pretty outstanding wrestling in there too, and the characters that were built are characters that Vince McMahon would sacrifice his left testicle for. I would concede that blood was spilled too generously, and maybe the overall intensity of the product was a bit much, but hindsight is always 20/20. You'll never know what the boundaries are until you try to push past them, and that was the trend of wrestling in general (Seeing the rise of ECW and WCW) at that moment in time.

Maybe in 10 years time we'll look back at the PG Era and malign the under-utilisation of Daniel Bryan, Antonio Cesaro and the eons it took to raise Dolph to the next level. The rose-tinted specs that people wear when they look back at the AE isn't of Foley throwing himself from the cage (Although that is an iconic moment, ironically used to convey a brutality of the HIAC match that has long since been toned down), but of the larger than life characters, the prolonged storylines and matches that were aimed at a demographic that WWE has since abandoned.

Everything is different now. The production values, the structure of feuds, shows and PPVs are far more formulaic and the lack of competition means that there is no incentive for WWE to move outside of it's comfort zone. This era will last until an external factor forces change. Whether that's another WCW type promotion, a culture shift, or something else, I don't know, but PG/Super Cena era is here for a while yet.

turdpower
April 30th, 2013, 5:04 PM
I always wondered when JR said "They've killed him" if it was just a slip of the tongue (He should have said "he" as in Taker) or if he was accidentally referring to someone else who planned the spot/Okayed it.

Cewsh
April 30th, 2013, 5:05 PM
I think Foley has said that he didn't tell anyone but the Undertaker what he was planning, and Taker tried hard to talk him out of it.

Jimmy Zero
April 30th, 2013, 5:09 PM
Yeah, I always thought Vince wasn't aware that they were going to do that.

I mean, shit, even though Taker new it was going to happen, he still looks legitimately freaked out after Foley hits the ground.

Cewsh
April 30th, 2013, 5:13 PM
Well imagine that spot from Taker's POV. Foley's the crazy bastard forcing him to go along with it, and if he dies, or gets paralyzed, then that's something Taker has to live with forever.

Jimmy Zero
April 30th, 2013, 5:16 PM
Taker always could have refused to be a part of that spot.

If I was in his position, I sure as shit wouldn't want to be remembered as the guy that killed/paralyzed a coworker in front of thousands of people. It's one thing if a move goes wrong, a la the pile driver Austin took from Owen, but that Foley bump is a whole other level of irresponsible foolishness.

Vice
April 30th, 2013, 5:17 PM
If Foley told no one but Taker, and he ended up dying on contact.. good lord that'd be awkward for ol' Mean Mark, having to explain that while trying to avoid a murder charge.

wardy
April 30th, 2013, 5:22 PM
I think the attitude era was an inevitability based on the culture at the time to take everything to it's limits, so even if Foley hadn't thrown himself from the cage, then we'd probably be talking about another superstar who would have done something equally as dangerous.

As for ruining wrestling... I don't buy it. The Attitude Era wasn't a one trick pony with people throwing themselves from cages week in, week out. There was some pretty outstanding wrestling in there too, and the characters that were built are characters that Vince McMahon would sacrifice his left testicle for. I would concede that blood was spilled too generously, and maybe the overall intensity of the product was a bit much, but hindsight is always 20/20. You'll never know what the boundaries are until you try to push past them, and that was the trend of wrestling in general (Seeing the rise of ECW and WCW) at that moment in time.

Maybe in 10 years time we'll look back at the PG Era and malign the under-utilisation of Daniel Bryan, Antonio Cesaro and the eons it took to raise Dolph to the next level. The rose-tinted specs that people wear when they look back at the AE isn't of Foley throwing himself from the cage (Although that is an iconic moment, ironically used to convey a brutality of the HIAC match that has long since been toned down), but of the larger than life characters, the prolonged storylines and matches that were aimed at a demographic that WWE has since abandoned.

Everything is different now. The production values, the structure of feuds, shows and PPVs are far more formulaic and the lack of competition means that there is no incentive for WWE to move outside of it's comfort zone. This era will last until an external factor forces change. Whether that's another WCW type promotion, a culture shift, or something else, I don't know, but PG/Super Cena era is here for a while yet.
Completely agree with all of this.

Cewsh constantly slagging off the Attitude Era is pretty funny considering he never even watched wrestling at the time. It's like some guy that never watched The Simpsons until 2002 saying all the classic episodes are shit, you know, the ones from the era when it was ridiculously popular and all the episodes had better writing and characters.

Cewsh
April 30th, 2013, 5:25 PM
Cewsh constantly slagging off the Attitude Era is pretty funny considering he never even watched wrestling at the time. It's like some guy that never watched The Simpsons until 2002 saying all the classic episodes are shit, you know, the ones from the era when it was ridiculously popular and all the episodes had better writing and characters.

So it's only possible to like things if you watched them while they were originally airing?

You could certainly say that I can't understand the buzz around the shows at the time, because that isn't replicatable, and fair enough there. But I watched from 1991-1996 and started again in 2000, and I've watched nearly every show in between. It's not like it's an alien land.

And I'll say again, the Attitude Era isn't my cup of tea, but I'm not slagging it off here, and that's never been my point about it.

The Rogerer
April 30th, 2013, 5:27 PM
When I got into wrestling during the attitude era, the HIAC with Foley had already happened and I became a fan of his remembering Catcus Jack from years before. I always took the HIAC for granted and that was the big match, but watching it again with some distance the bump is just absolutely insane. Starting the match cold and then having this ridiculous bump. I think the match is only interesting because of everything that happens after the bumps, which end up being a very slow but very high stakes match. I really don't know how I feel about it now but it just seems mental. I can't help but feel that Foley was starting to feel very insecure about his abilities and was looking for a way out.

wardy
April 30th, 2013, 5:27 PM
So it's only possible to like things if you watched them while they were originally airing?
In your case, it would very much seem like it.

Cewsh
April 30th, 2013, 5:29 PM
In your case, it would very much seem like it.

Not sure you know me as well as you seem to think, amigo.

casselmm47
April 30th, 2013, 5:29 PM
I think there's an exaggeration of the excess of nudity during the Attitude Era. Aside from Kat and (ugh) Mae Young flashing at PPVs, Sables hand-kini (or whatever you'd call it, even though that would barely qualify) and discounting legit unplanned nip-slips (kinda like the Edge/Lita live sex event), how much OMG NUDITY actually occured, and how much was confined to PPV vs TV?

Jimmy Zero
April 30th, 2013, 5:35 PM
I think there's an exaggeration of the excess of nudity during the Attitude Era. Aside from Kat and (ugh) Mae Young flashing at PPVs, Sables hand-kini (or whatever you'd call it, even though that would barely qualify) and discounting legit unplanned nip-slips (kinda like the Edge/Lita live sex event), how much OMG NUDITY actually occured, and how much was confined to PPV vs TV?

I don't remember a ton of full on titties being out, and shit like that, but there were bra and panties matches all the damn time.

chatty
April 30th, 2013, 5:36 PM
TBF if you watched it at the time it did help, I have been watching those years again recently and they don't stand the test of time as well as you would think. At the time it was just bizzing from beinning to end, they could see a jobber like taka out there and you still had high hopes for the match. If they send Jinder mahal out now most people are moving towards the fast forward button.

Defrost
April 30th, 2013, 5:37 PM
Austin
Rock
Big Show
HHH
Angle
Jericho
Benoit
Undertaker
Kane
Foley

There's 10, so go name me a 100 for now.

OKGO!

There is no one on the roster currently that would be able to break into the Austin/Rock/Hunter/Foley/Taker/Angle main event group of that time. No one close.

The Law
April 30th, 2013, 5:38 PM
I decided to start listing my many grievances from the Attitude Era. Here's what I've got so far:

-Taking the WWF title off Steve Austin at King of the Ring 1998, then having him win it back the next night on Raw. Then taking the belt off him against at Over the Edge 1999. Seriously, they couldn't figure out that the belt belonged with the most over guy on the planet?

-Doing Austin vs. Big Show on Raw before Wrestlemania 15. Not like that match could have made some money down the line if built properly...

-Brian Pillman trying to shoot Steve Austin.

-Interviewing Brian Pillman's grieving widow on Raw a few weeks after he died.

-Having Jim Cornette, Vince McMahon, and various other members of the company attack Phil Mushnick for publishing a column suggesting wrestling culture contributed to Pillman's death (guess what, it did!). Clearly, the guy writing about wrestlers dying at a staggeringly young age is the bad guy in that situation.

-Beaver Cleavage. Look it up.

-Repeatedly admitting that wrestling is pre-determined on television. Fuck off with your worked shoot bullshit.

-Mark Henry and Mae Young. Mae Young giving birth to a hand.

-Terri Runnels "getting pregnant" and then "having a miscarriage" on Raw. That definitely sold a lot of tickets.

-The Kennel from Hell match. Sweet Jesus, what an abomination this was. Nothing makes for a good match like dogs fucking and pissing and shitting all over ringside.

-Boss Man revealing that Big Show is a bastard.

-Triple H date-raping Stephanie (turned out it was a hoax and she was in on it, but this was the initial story). Also having Vince fight Triple H after this happened instead of Test. Why try to make a new star when you can instead put the owner of the company in a PPV main event?

-Vince McMahon winning the WWF Title.

-The Brawl for All. Wrestling is supposed to be a business where trained athletes pretend to hurt each other and people think that it's real. Here, they actually hurt each other and everyone thought it was fake. Good work! Also, they destroyed Dr. Death's credibility. Which might have been useful right about the time they did Undertaker vs. Austin round 1,000,000.

-Making a storyline of Hawk's real-life substance abuse problems. Having Droz be his drug dealer and Hawk try to kill himself by jumping off the TitanTron. Portraying Hawk as being drunk during matches. Really made it awkward when he died young due to his substance abuse several years later.

-Vince McMahon being the Greater Power. Obviously a storyline they started without any idea of how it would finish.

-Making Gillberg the Lightheavyweight Champion. Gillberg in general.

-Finishing Over the Edge after Owen died.

Jimmy Zero
April 30th, 2013, 5:39 PM
There is no one on the roster currently that would be able to break into the Austin/Rock/Hunter/Foley/Taker/Angle main event group of that time. No one close.

I think Punk could. Daniel Bryan possibly, too.

Defrost
April 30th, 2013, 5:42 PM
I think Punk could. Daniel Bryan possibly, too.

You watch Punk with Rock or that sit down video game thing with Austin and it is obvious that Punk would maybe be at IC title level. Probably European title level back then. Those two were so far beyond him it was scary. Danielson would be Owen Hart Jr in 1998/1999 but mayb in 2000 he'd be IC title mix with Jericho and Benoit.

Beer-Belly
April 30th, 2013, 5:54 PM
You watch Punk with Rock or that sit down video game thing with Austin and it is obvious that Punk would maybe be at IC title level. Probably European title level back then. Those two were so far beyond him it was scary. Danielson would be Owen Hart Jr in 1998/1999 but mayb in 2000 he'd be IC title mix with Jericho and Benoit.

Christ, you're jaded. Punk was in full on pandering babyface mode during that WWE '13 interview opposite Austin. Punk and Austin would have been a masterful feud back in the Attitude days. Rock, as much as I love him, has a very specific schtick that's especially hard to play off of when he's working babyface. Bryan has loads more charisma than Owen and Benoit, but he probably would have been in the Intercontinental range for the most part.

Slare
April 30th, 2013, 5:55 PM
I think the attitude era was an inevitability based on the culture at the time to take everything to it's limits, so even if Foley hadn't thrown himself from the cage, then we'd probably be talking about another superstar who would have done something equally as dangerous.

As for ruining wrestling... I don't buy it. The Attitude Era wasn't a one trick pony with people throwing themselves from cages week in, week out. There was some pretty outstanding wrestling in there too, and the characters that were built are characters that Vince McMahon would sacrifice his left testicle for. I would concede that blood was spilled too generously, and maybe the overall intensity of the product was a bit much, but hindsight is always 20/20. You'll never know what the boundaries are until you try to push past them, and that was the trend of wrestling in general (Seeing the rise of ECW and WCW) at that moment in time.

Maybe in 10 years time we'll look back at the PG Era and malign the under-utilisation of Daniel Bryan, Antonio Cesaro and the eons it took to raise Dolph to the next level. The rose-tinted specs that people wear when they look back at the AE isn't of Foley throwing himself from the cage (Although that is an iconic moment, ironically used to convey a brutality of the HIAC match that has long since been toned down), but of the larger than life characters, the prolonged storylines and matches that were aimed at a demographic that WWE has since abandoned.

Everything is different now. The production values, the structure of feuds, shows and PPVs are far more formulaic and the lack of competition means that there is no incentive for WWE to move outside of it's comfort zone. This era will last until an external factor forces change. Whether that's another WCW type promotion, a culture shift, or something else, I don't know, but PG/Super Cena era is here for a while yet.

Absolutely spot on

chatty
April 30th, 2013, 5:58 PM
To be fair I'm glad they did Henry/Mae Young hand just for the comedy value it now has.

Gillberg was damn over for what a joke of a character it was so no qualms although I agree with the title bit - would agree with every other point as well.

chatty
April 30th, 2013, 6:00 PM
You watch Punk with Rock or that sit down video game thing with Austin and it is obvious that Punk would maybe be at IC title level. Probably European title level back then. Those two were so far beyond him it was scary. Danielson would be Owen Hart Jr in 1998/1999 but mayb in 2000 he'd be IC title mix with Jericho and Benoit.

TBF it was Rocks fault that feud was shocking as he's out of ring-shape and had to have a breather after two minutes into the match. Also the booking was shit - If they had let Punk win and then put Rock over at EC then it would have been much better - Punk was pretty much booked into a corner due to them wanting to make Rock look like a beast before jobbing to Cena.

Andy
April 30th, 2013, 6:04 PM
I really, really struggle to believe no one else was in on the spot. I also struggle to believe some peoples' claim that the cell wasn't meant to break with the chokeslam.

Cewsh
April 30th, 2013, 6:08 PM
I really, really struggle to believe no one else was in on the spot. I also struggle to believe some peoples' claim that the cell wasn't meant to break with the chokeslam.

The second bit isn't true. Foley has said that he had the tech guy rig it specifically.

Also, Frosty is very likely right about Bryan. Not because of skill, just because of his size and his lack of promo skills and charisma when he first debuted. He never even would have been signed in the first place.

Peter Griffin
April 30th, 2013, 6:12 PM
You watch Punk with Rock or that sit down video game thing with Austin and it is obvious that Punk would maybe be at IC title level. Probably European title level back then. Those two were so far beyond him it was scary. Danielson would be Owen Hart Jr in 1998/1999 but mayb in 2000 he'd be IC title mix with Jericho and Benoit.

Dont talk out your arse, Yes Rock and Austin are phenoms when it come to promo's and selling themselves, but to say Punk is no where near them is flat out b.s. Punk is a great all round performer and a great promo guy, who tried his best to carry that roided up cunt Rock to a decent couple of matches.

Jimmy Zero
April 30th, 2013, 6:17 PM
Yeah, I really don't see how Rock has crapped all over Punk in their feud, and he's never once seemed lightyears beyond Punk, or Cena for that matter. IMO, Rock's been fairly terrible on the mic since his part time return, with a few exceptions.

G-Fresh
April 30th, 2013, 6:54 PM
Dont talk out your arse, Yes Rock and Austin are phenoms when it come to promo's and selling themselves, but to say Punk is no where near them is flat out b.s.

Nah. The homie Defrost is on point.

Peter Griffin
April 30th, 2013, 7:09 PM
Yes DVDA we all know you dont like Punk :squint:

Brian M.
April 30th, 2013, 7:21 PM
Defrost has been hyping up how much better Rock is than all of the current roster since he first came back. I think the basis of his argument is that Rock has the crowd eating out of his hand every time he cuts a promo. But I think a lot of that comes down to the fact that it's The Rock and people remember him from their childhood and they will love anything he does. I'm not going to deny The Rock's charisma but I don't think it's fair to compare his promos the last couple of years to other guys in the company.

Obviously nobody today would have reached the heights of Rock or Austin if they wrestled back in the Attitude Era. If there were a talent that great, the company would be in better shape right now. I think it's a stretch to say that guys like Cena and Punk couldn't have reached Foley or Angle's level though. They very easily could have fit in just fine as borderline main event guys back then. Both could work the brawling style that was necessary in those days and both are fantastic promos when given the chance to let loose.

Ochoa
April 30th, 2013, 9:30 PM
I decided to start listing my many grievances from the Attitude Era. Here's what I've got so far:

-Taking the WWF title off Steve Austin at King of the Ring 1998, then having him win it back the next night on Raw. Then taking the belt off him against at Over the Edge 1999. Seriously, they couldn't figure out that the belt belonged with the most over guy on the planet?

-Doing Austin vs. Big Show on Raw before Wrestlemania 15. Not like that match could have made some money down the line if built properly...

-Brian Pillman trying to shoot Steve Austin.

-Interviewing Brian Pillman's grieving widow on Raw a few weeks after he died.

-Having Jim Cornette, Vince McMahon, and various other members of the company attack Phil Mushnick for publishing a column suggesting wrestling culture contributed to Pillman's death (guess what, it did!). Clearly, the guy writing about wrestlers dying at a staggeringly young age is the bad guy in that situation.

-Beaver Cleavage. Look it up.

-Repeatedly admitting that wrestling is pre-determined on television. Fuck off with your worked shoot bullshit.

-Mark Henry and Mae Young. Mae Young giving birth to a hand.

-Terri Runnels "getting pregnant" and then "having a miscarriage" on Raw. That definitely sold a lot of tickets.

-The Kennel from Hell match. Sweet Jesus, what an abomination this was. Nothing makes for a good match like dogs fucking and pissing and shitting all over ringside.

-Boss Man revealing that Big Show is a bastard.

-Triple H date-raping Stephanie (turned out it was a hoax and she was in on it, but this was the initial story). Also having Vince fight Triple H after this happened instead of Test. Why try to make a new star when you can instead put the owner of the company in a PPV main event?

-Vince McMahon winning the WWF Title.

-The Brawl for All. Wrestling is supposed to be a business where trained athletes pretend to hurt each other and people think that it's real. Here, they actually hurt each other and everyone thought it was fake. Good work! Also, they destroyed Dr. Death's credibility. Which might have been useful right about the time they did Undertaker vs. Austin round 1,000,000.

-Making a storyline of Hawk's real-life substance abuse problems. Having Droz be his drug dealer and Hawk try to kill himself by jumping off the TitanTron. Portraying Hawk as being drunk during matches. Really made it awkward when he died young due to his substance abuse several years later.

-Vince McMahon being the Greater Power. Obviously a storyline they started without any idea of how it would finish.

-Making Gillberg the Lightheavyweight Champion. Gillberg in general.

-Finishing Over the Edge after Owen died.




Also Taker trying to embalm Austin.

The Law
April 30th, 2013, 9:33 PM
The hot-shotting and meaninglessness of titles in the Attitude Era is among my biggest complaints. Up until 1997 they were still doing a pretty good job of making the WWF Title important: it rarely changed hands more than or twice per year, and reigns of 9+ months were still pretty common. Then came 1997. Seven title changes in 1997. That was partially cased by Shawn losing his smile, but there was also some hot shotting. 1998 was okay, although Austin losing the title to Kane was really stupid. Then came 1999: The WWF Title changed hands 13 times. That included such illustrious reigns as Vince McMahon beating Triple H in the midst of his first reigns, Foley winning the title three times and holding it for a total of a month and a half, and Big Show getting the title for a month for no particular reason.

Basically, the way I see the WWE Title is that it should be sacred. Only the absolute top guys should get the title and it shouldn't change hands more than two or three times per year. Starting in the Attitude Era, they had it change hands for no reason other than the writers got bored with the same guy being on top. Way too many instances of guys trading the title within a feud. Too many title changes on free TV. They finally seem to be correcting this, but we're already at the point where Cena is a 13-time champion and Sheamus has had three title reigns despite wrestling in one PPV singles main event in his career.

It used to be a huge deal when guys won the title. Remember when Michaels finally got it? Or when Bret beat Flair? Those guys both worked for the company for almost a decade before becoming champions. They resisted the urge to put the title on Austin in 1997 and instead waited until they could make it special. That was great. When is the last time someone's first title win really seemed special? Jeff Hardy in 2008 is the best I can think of, and they had him drop the title the next month. Money in the Bank is a big problem here too, because guys get the belt in chickenshit ways. It would have been nice for Punk, Bryan, and Ziggler's title wins to have been the payoff to a well-built feud and great match instead of an impersonation of the 24/7 Hardcore Title.

Judas Iscariot
May 1st, 2013, 12:32 AM
Wrestlers should make the titles. Titles shouldn't make the wrestlers. And then the titles become something important in feuds because these BUILT UP WRESTLERS are fighting over them.

The problem is there's no fucking booking anymore.

Who fucking knows who would have been able to cut it back then these days with the way booking is handled?

If Punk were booked during the Attitude Era instead of Stone Cold, who's to say he wouldn't have become just as big as an alternate universe antichrist version of Stone Cold?

I mean, fuck. The booking had MIDCARDERS getting reactions that blew the roof off of fucking buildings.

And right now we're sitting here thinking, "Antonio Cesaro is a monster and now he's a jobber! WTF?"

It's because now there's a CREATIVE TEAM who don't fucking understand how WRESTLING works and don't know what to do with anyone outside of the main event, and they don't even know what they're doing then.

If this CREATIVE TEAM were in charge of the Attitude Era, we'd be watching WCW Nitro and Thunder right now wondering the same damn thing.

Please, everyone try and keep in mind for a split second that the first hour of RAW was TVPG as well. It was the second hour that was TV14.

But it could be TV G if there were any direction for ANYTHING.

Atty
May 1st, 2013, 12:51 AM
There was nothing little about Val Venis!


He was certainly underVALued.

Atty
May 1st, 2013, 12:56 AM
A better summary of my point would be to say that Foley's fall killed what Hell in a Cell could have been. As in, a match where people tune in for reasons other than to see somebody die.

Foley was not the first or the last to fall off the cell.

Zacharie
May 1st, 2013, 1:05 AM
Jim Cornette did an interesting shoot similar to the subject, talking about how ECW and the hardcore matches in WWF numbed wrestling fans to the point where they didn't care about big spots. I loved the attitude era, but I definitely see how it hurt the business in the long run.

Jim also gives an interesting perspective on D-Generation-X, basically talking about how their gimmick (which I also loved...) was bad for business since they were basically just "jerking off" on all the angles and storylines.

I think the series is called "Timeline of 1997." It definitely opened my eyes to how some of the shit that went down back then hurt us in the long run.

Beer-Belly
May 1st, 2013, 1:16 AM
It's really entertaining and insightful.

I don't always agree with Cornette, but he's probably a good guy to have in the wheel house.

HHHnFoley_Rulez
May 1st, 2013, 1:24 AM
You know what the real problem is for todays wrestling?

The majority of adult fans, who are on the internet, just can not be impressed any more. They refuse to be. God forbid they get excited about Wrestling when it's not "cool". I used to say this all the time in the RAW thread but I've retired from that.

People need to know more, need to be smart, need to be on the 'inside track' all the time. Picking at things and over-analysing a show that for goodness sake is PG and aimed at kids. I never see a thread about how Dexter was held down my Mimi, or Alvin totally buried Simon and Theodore. We (as wrestling fans in the 90s who are now approaching their late 20's) were spoilt with the Attitude Era. You can say it ruined wrestling but regardless of how much I want to disagree I can't prove/disprove it. All I know is I enjoyed wrestling, I was a wrestling fan and its from that that I still watch today.

Yeah, the PG era is aimed at kids, but the Attitude Era was aimed at "me" - so why not let the Kids have their time... the little shits. In 15 years time they will post on some weird technologically advanced message board how the PG era was the best era ever and then 3 years later people will bemoan how the PG era killed the new TV45+ show where everyone is in a relationship with kids and struggles to wrestle 9 to 5 only to come home and argue in the ring with their spouse about the washing.

Judas Iscariot
May 1st, 2013, 1:25 AM
Cornette's interviews have often gotten me from going, "Oh, I'll watch this 9 minute clip," to, "Oh my God, it's been two and a half hours?"

Vice
May 1st, 2013, 1:29 AM
Megatron held Starscream down, then downright buried him after becoming Galvatron. And you know who jobs a lot? Optimus Prime. Dude never wins a feud. He's died like 40 times.

Judas Iscariot
May 1st, 2013, 1:31 AM
You know what the real problem is for todays wrestling?

The majority of adult fans, who are on the internet, just can not be impressed any more. They refuse to be. God forbid they get excited about Wrestling when it's not "cool". I used to say this all the time in the RAW thread but I've retired from that.

People need to know more, need to be smart, need to be on the 'inside track' all the time. Picking at things and over-analysing a show that for goodness sake is PG and aimed at kids. I never see a thread about how Dexter was held down my Mimi, or Alvin totally buried Simon and Theodore. We (as wrestling fans in the 90s who are now approaching their late 20's) were spoilt with the Attitude Era. You can say it ruined wrestling but regardless of how much I want to disagree I can't prove/disprove it. All I know is I enjoyed wrestling, I was a wrestling fan and its from that that I still watch today.

Yeah, the PG era is aimed at kids, but the Attitude Era was aimed at "me" - so why not let the Kids have their time... the little shits. In 15 years time they will post on some weird technologically advanced message board how the PG era was the best era ever and then 3 years later people will bemoan how the PG era killed the new TV45+ show where everyone is in a relationship with kids and struggles to wrestle 9 to 5 only to come home and argue in the ring with their spouse about the washing.

Nah, that's not it at all.

All anyone wants are feuds they give a shit about.

While we were younger (I don't know how old you are, but I was 12), the first half of RAW was still PG. The TV14 didn't happen until the second hour.

And I have a really big problem with the notion that PG is aimed at kids.

Family Guy is rated TVPG here in the states and it gets away with plenty.

Judas Iscariot
May 1st, 2013, 1:32 AM
Megatron held Starscream down, then downright buried him after becoming Galvatron. And you know who jobs a lot? Optimus Prime. Dude never wins a feud. He's died like 40 times.

Yeah I'm sorry I was too young for the whole TRANSFORMERS thing.

Rugrats was my shit, though.

Vice
May 1st, 2013, 1:48 AM
You're 5 days older than me.

Judas Iscariot
May 1st, 2013, 1:51 AM
Yet somehow you're living in the past, Vice.

SOMEHOW YOU'RE LIVING IN THE PAST.

Judas Iscariot
May 1st, 2013, 1:57 AM
"Oh my God, Transformers, I totally watched those cartoons when I was two years old."

Get the fuck out of here.

I fucking HATE everyone who's like, "Oh, the cartoons in the 80s and early 90s! Thundercats HOOOOOO!"

Shut up. You were four years old and don't even fucking remember it from when you were that age.

Judas Iscariot
May 1st, 2013, 1:59 AM
Rugrats > Transformers

Tommy Pickles would DESTROY them.

Cewsh
May 1st, 2013, 2:04 AM
Nah, that's not it at all.

All anyone wants are feuds they give a shit about.

But people DO care about these feuds. Just not the audience that you're a part of.

Judas Iscariot
May 1st, 2013, 2:06 AM
What does that even mean?

Don't categorize me, because you don't even know me.

Vice
May 1st, 2013, 2:08 AM
"Oh my God, Transformers, I totally watched those cartoons when I was two years old."

Get the fuck out of here.

I fucking HATE everyone who's like, "Oh, the cartoons in the 80s and early 90s! Thundercats HOOOOOO!"

Shut up. You were four years old and don't even fucking remember it from when you were that age.

Hey, my mother did take baby Vice to see Transformers: The Movie in 1986 when it was in theaters, because my older brother demanded to see it. He was 4.

Ochoa
May 1st, 2013, 9:33 AM
Rugrats > Transformers

Tommy Pickles would DESTROY them.

Tommy Pickles couldn't hold Doug Funnie's jockstrap.

Badger
May 1st, 2013, 9:39 AM
What Doug lacks in upper body strength, he makes up for with speed, intelligence and the powers of THE QUAIL!

chatty
May 1st, 2013, 10:03 AM
You guys are crazy if you think any of these could come near to surpassing Deadeye Duck
http://th00.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2012/201/a/c/deadeye_duck_by_code_e-d57yn48.png

Atty
May 1st, 2013, 10:04 AM
"Oh my God, Transformers, I totally watched those cartoons when I was two years old."

Get the fuck out of here.

I fucking HATE everyone who's like, "Oh, the cartoons in the 80s and early 90s! Thundercats HOOOOOO!"

Shut up. You were four years old and don't even fucking remember it from when you were that age.

Vice is going to hate me using this example, but your argument is moronic based on the fact that Transformers movies, even while terrible, made like 20 trillion dollars in the past six years.

Brian M.
May 1st, 2013, 12:36 PM
What does that even mean?

Don't categorize me, because you don't even know me.

It means that between 4-5 million people still watch the show each week. And if you're tuning into something each week, you probably give a shit about what's going on. Not everyone is watching just because they used to watch wrestling as a kid and it's something they have grown accustomed to. A large number of people actually LIKE the product.

Now, is that to say it's perfect? No, far from it. They could do a lot more to get different types of fans invested and have even more viewers, and get those viewers to buy the PPVs. But to say nobody is invested in the feuds is false.

WizoOzz
May 1st, 2013, 2:51 PM
I find this topic fascinating, and I also see for the most part Cewsh's point of view, and identify with quite a bit of it.

While I think that the answer to this question has many small parts to it, it kind of parallels Cewsh's observations on the Hell in a Cell issue. There was some stuff that was great for the business - but ultimately the fervor for the industry basically is what has put us in the place where we are today. Without going too far into detail, I think a mix of things - guys becoming legends due to their recklessness (see Mick Foley, who in my defense, is one of my all time favorites), the smartening of fans thanks to the internet (which you can semi thank ECW for, as their most rabid fans were those of us initially on these types of sites and message boards), and the sheer amount of guys who had charisma and experience in various other places who knew what worked and what doesn't work.

However, it had not become the massive entertainment focused product that it has now - guys were told to go out there and cut a promo with a little direction, but not wholly scripted promos.

There is a lot of positivity that came from that era, but ultimately, when the onion's layers are peeled back, eventually the air makes that unearthed layer dry up eventually. Which is where we're at. I'm not going to say that those of us that watched back then were spoiled, but in effect, we were exposed to guys in the highlight of their careers. The matches sometimes sucked, but the pace was so frenetic, and the crowds, while large, were still intimate enough to get us all hyped up. And now, it's become the bloated thing it is now. It's essentially the same as the HiaC debate - it took one spot off the top of the cage (two if you count the chokeslam that concussed Foley), and forever it was the one that all others were compared to.

Yes, to a degree the bar being at such ridiculous heights is somewhat bad for the business. But the fact that there is a bar to measure with, and that people are still interested in comparing where we are to it shows that there is still passion out there for it, and that maybe one day, the bar will be reached. Maybe not in the same exact ways, but maybe in a way that the bar is more apt to be reached more frequently, and more consistently.

JP
May 1st, 2013, 3:11 PM
I think people are putting far too much emphasis on the big bumps and spots.

How many massive bumps did Austin take? Or Rock? Or HHH?

The simple reason why there are not as many fans now as there were then, that ratings and buyrates are down, is that the product simply isn't as good as it used to be.

If the attitude era 'ruined' wrestling, it was by being too entertaining to immediately follow.

Ochoa
May 1st, 2013, 3:48 PM
What Doug lacks in upper body strength, he makes up for with speed, intelligence and the powers of THE QUAIL!

Don't forget patience!

Brian M.
May 1st, 2013, 4:05 PM
I think the highest quality the product ever reached was in 2000. However I feel like when most people talk about the Attitude Era, they are talking about 1998-99. I've been re-watching some of the 1999 Raws and they are fucking dire some of the time. There were horrible booking decisions back then too but they didn't really matter because you had Austin running around on the top of the card and the fans were going to tune in every week to see what he did.

What they really need is another Austin and those guys don't come around very often.

JP
May 1st, 2013, 4:12 PM
For me the attitude era is the KotR 96 through to the Raw after Survivor Series 2001, where Ric Flair returned.

Chris
May 1st, 2013, 4:19 PM
I think people are putting far too much emphasis on the big bumps and spots.

How many massive bumps did Austin take? Or Rock? Or HHH?

The simple reason why there are not as many fans now as there were then, that ratings and buyrates are down, is that the product simply isn't as good as it used to be.

If the attitude era 'ruined' wrestling, it was by being too entertaining to immediately follow.
Yep, this is pretty much my thoughts. The idea that Foley's tremendous bump had such a huge ad specific impact strikes me as a bit flimsy. You can say that people had unfair expectations of Hell in a Cell matches, but WWE were often guilty of promoting them as matches where that type of craziness could happen. They even had Rikishi come off the top of the Cell, despite it being a match featuring the biggest stars of the company with no need for such a moment. As for the attitude era as a whole, some of the best matches from that period were non-gimmick matches. And the top stars wrestling in regular matches had no problem following some of the exploits of the Hardys, Dudleys and E&C on the undercard.

The product today simply isn't as good as the heights of the attitude era. 2000 and 2001 remain two of the best years for matches, story-telling, compelling characters up and down the card, and variety. Since then, most of the belts have lost any kind of meaning or purpose, thus making it very difficult to care when they're defended. Mid-card wrestlers have been expected to sink or swim. WWE has increased the number of PPVs it expects fans to buy, while people struggle to make ends meet in a bad economy, and yet has frequently provided shows which do not give value for money. Over the past few years, we've had feuds that seemed to be stuck in a timewarp - rematch after rematch, without the appropriate booking to make those matches feel exciting or even necessary. They've expanded Raw to three hours, when they frequently struggled to make two good hours before the change. We've come to accept that WWE starts to coast in the summer months, as if that's actually acceptable. There's the argument that Wrestlemania is now a showcase for part-timers and big marquee matches, and that we shouldn't expect the mid-carders to get a look in. They continue to pursue an outdated model where they put the emphasis on one man - John Cena - despite the fact that he's not an Austin or a Rock, and WWE needs a big and vibrant main event picture now more than ever - as the big names are wrestling less, accumulating injuries or retiring altogether.

WWE at the moment is quite safe and benign. That makes it rather hit and miss. They can still pull out some great moments, like Ziggler cashing in Money in the Bank. They can still create great rivalries, like Cena vs Punk. They can still throw two guys together, like Kane and Daniel Bryan, and find a way of making it work. They can still provide moments that feel big or exciting, like Cena and Lesnar having a pull-apart brawl. They can still put on outstanding matches, like any of Taker's Wrestlemania bouts in the past 5 or 6 years. But there are still too many times when wrestlers are given little to do and thus struggle to get or stay over with the fans. Too many times when feuds aren't progressed in a timely manner. Too many times when things are over-produced or recapped to utter death. Too many times when Raw is a complete and utter shambles. And too many times when PPVs offer little scope for unpredictability or value for money.

I've never liked the idea that people tend to look back on the attitude era with rose-tinted glasses - it's always struck me as a rather hollow and cheap argument. It's the same as "the business is cyclical", despite there not being enough supposed cycles for the theory to hold up. But I think the notion that the attitude era was harmful to everything that followed it is even worse. That era, like all the others, had its good and bad points. WWE today has good and bad points. Some of the problems with today's product can be fixed, and WWE deserve to be criticised when they fail to do so and carry on resting on their laurels.

Jimmy Zero
May 1st, 2013, 4:30 PM
I think people are putting far too much emphasis on the big bumps and spots.

How many massive bumps did Austin take? Or Rock? Or HHH?

The simple reason why there are not as many fans now as there were then, that ratings and buyrates are down, is that the product simply isn't as good as it used to be.

If the attitude era 'ruined' wrestling, it was by being too entertaining to immediately follow.

See, I don't think the product isn't as good as it used to be, necessarily. I think, by and large, the ring work nowadays is much much better than the ring work from the Attitude Era.

The problem I have with today's WWE is that they have almost no compelling characters, at all. Back in the Attitude Era, you had Austin, Foley, Taker, Kane, Rock (when he was a heel, anyways), DX (HHH, X-Pac, NAO). All very different characters, all compelling in their own right (except for X-Pac, whom no one ever liked). Then, look at today's characters. You've got big angry tough guy faces, big angry tough guy heels, John Cena, CM Punk (who I don't find nearly as compelling as he was a year ago), and Daniel Bryan. I do think things are slowly but surely getting better in this department, but, for the most part, the WWE is sorely lacking in any variety of characters to get interested in.

It almost nullifies the quality wrestling we get from the guys today. The characters suck, therefore it's pretty hard to get invested in the feuds (and the booking in today's WWE is a whole other issue), therefore I don't care about the matches as much as I would if I were invested in the characters the wrestlers are portraying.

And, as for the topic at hand, I'd say the initial Raw/Smackdown brand split has done more to ruin mainstream wrestling than the Attitude Era ever did.

Kimura Kid
May 1st, 2013, 4:48 PM
Yep, this is pretty much my thoughts. The idea that Foley's tremendous bump had such a huge ad specific impact strikes me as a bit flimsy. You can say that people had unfair expectations of Hell in a Cell matches, but WWE were often guilty of promoting them as matches where that type of craziness could happen. They even had Rikishi come off the top of the Cell, despite it being a match featuring the biggest stars of the company with no need for such a moment. As for the attitude era as a whole, some of the best matches from that period were non-gimmick matches. And the top stars wrestling in regular matches had no problem following some of the exploits of the Hardys, Dudleys and E&C on the undercard.

The product today simply isn't as good as the heights of the attitude era. 2000 and 2001 remain two of the best years for matches, story-telling, compelling characters up and down the card, and variety. Since then, most of the belts have lost any kind of meaning or purpose, thus making it very difficult to care when they're defended. Mid-card wrestlers have been expected to sink or swim. WWE has increased the number of PPVs it expects fans to buy, while people struggle to make ends meet in a bad economy, and yet has frequently provided shows which do not give value for money. Over the past few years, we've had feuds that seemed to be stuck in a timewarp - rematch after rematch, without the appropriate booking to make those matches feel exciting or even necessary. They've expanded Raw to three hours, when they frequently struggled to make two good hours before the change. We've come to accept that WWE starts to coast in the summer months, as if that's actually acceptable. There's the argument that Wrestlemania is now a showcase for part-timers and big marquee matches, and that we shouldn't expect the mid-carders to get a look in. They continue to pursue an outdated model where they put the emphasis on one man - John Cena - despite the fact that he's not an Austin or a Rock, and WWE needs a big and vibrant main event picture now more than ever - as the big names are wrestling less, accumulating injuries or retiring altogether.

WWE at the moment is quite safe and benign. That makes it rather hit and miss. They can still pull out some great moments, like Ziggler cashing in Money in the Bank. They can still create great rivalries, like Cena vs Punk. They can still throw two guys together, like Kane and Daniel Bryan, and find a way of making it work. They can still provide moments that feel big or exciting, like Cena and Lesnar having a pull-apart brawl. They can still put on outstanding matches, like any of Taker's Wrestlemania bouts in the past 5 or 6 years. But there are still too many times when wrestlers are given little to do and thus struggle to get or stay over with the fans. Too many times when feuds aren't progressed in a timely manner. Too many times when things are over-produced or recapped to utter death. Too many times when Raw is a complete and utter shambles. And too many times when PPVs offer little scope for unpredictability or value for money.

I've never liked the idea that people tend to look back on the attitude era with rose-tinted glasses - it's always struck me as a rather hollow and cheap argument. It's the same as "the business is cyclical", despite there not being enough supposed cycles for the theory to hold up. But I think the notion that the attitude era was harmful to everything that followed it is even worse. That era, like all the others, had its good and bad points. WWE today has good and bad points. Some of the problems with today's product can be fixed, and WWE deserve to be criticised when they fail to do so and carry on resting on their laurels.

What an amazing post, Good shit man!! I enjoyed reading that.

wardy
May 1st, 2013, 5:21 PM
The Attiude Era didn't ruin wrestling. It SAVED it. Wasn't the WWF close to going out of business just before it started?

Cewsh
May 1st, 2013, 5:37 PM
I've never liked the idea that people tend to look back on the attitude era with rose-tinted glasses - it's always struck me as a rather hollow and cheap argument. It's the same as "the business is cyclical".

How are those two ideas connected? I don't think it's the same thing at all.

Chris
May 1st, 2013, 5:53 PM
The latter is just another example of a simplistic argument that tends to do the rounds when people talk about the reasons why the product isn't as good as it used to be. But I was just referencing it as a further example of a theory which I don't think stands up to scrutiny, but continues to be promoted - not connecting it directly to the current topic.

Cewsh
May 1st, 2013, 6:24 PM
It's interesting that you discredit it so out of hand. I don't think the actual theory behind that is really all that arguable. People view things as being better than they really were due to nostalgia. It's a pretty common and identifiable phenomenon. It would be wrong to say that everyone does that, or that the people that do are always wrong to do so. But it is still very much a thing that happens.

Not sure what there is to scrutinize.

HHHnFoley_Rulez
May 1st, 2013, 6:43 PM
This is the internet, so, everything Cewsh.

Everything.

Andy
May 1st, 2013, 6:45 PM
Yeah I've always wondered why some people tend to think of 1998-1999 as the Attitude Era. Maybe because it was the height of the Austin/McMahon feud. I actually think late 1999 all the way through to WM17 was the most consistently excellent period.

The Rogerer
May 1st, 2013, 6:50 PM
The Attitude Era was clearly winding down already in 2000 - The blossoming of the Radicals, Jericho and Kurt Angle et al meant that the roster was having additions at every level with people who didn't have over gimmicks. The height of a lot of the greatness of 2000 and 2001 was completely moving away from what the attitude era was about, a big emphasis on the in ring action with more straight-laced and talented people. The Invasion followed by the brand split is probably what did a much better job of alienating people from the shows, but that's something I'd go into more later. The attitude era itself is something that I'd put before that surge in quality, and I'd associate it more with Austin's time - gimmicks throughout the rest of the card with a massive surge of popularity for Austin, DX and the product as a whole.

Cewsh
May 1st, 2013, 6:52 PM
You could make a definite argument that the Attitude Era ended when Austin got run over by Rikishi. The shows from then on with Rock and Triple H on top were clearly different.

Hotbeef-Injection
May 1st, 2013, 7:11 PM
The thing that I find truly dreadful with todays product is the amount of times we see the same old matches. How many times must Orton beat Barrett, Ziggler vs Kofi. Hell has Del Rio had a feud that hasn't lasted at least three PPV's?

WWE tends to push the 'play it safe' button a lot and not capitalize on a good thing. Bryan might be the most over guy in the whole WWE but they won't have him near the top of the card and basically buried his title reign in 18 seconds.CM Punk's title run was excellent but then bang - Cena vs Rock and HHH vs Lesnar. Safe, no-frills booking. The reason everyone loves Shield is because it feels like the first time they've booked guys properly in ages. Brodus Clay, Damien Sandow, Ryback and Antonio Cesaro all came in looking great, and have completely stalled as characters (although now Ryback has had a way-too-soon turn).

The attitude era was a time when it felt like anything could happen - we'd get twists, turns must-see TV. Nowadays I get recaps of what has already happened that night, tweets, touts,movie trailer and incredibly tedious rematches. I think WWE are more than capable of putting on a good show, and they have great talent. I just think the structure and atmosphere of the show is lacking somewhat.

The Law
May 1st, 2013, 7:11 PM
Russo and Ferrara left for WCW in late-September/early October 1999, so there was definitely a change in the creative direction of the company at that time. Subsequently they stopped hot-shotting the title so much and started focusing on building longer term stories that paid off-Triple H vs. Mankind/Cactus, Rock vs. Triple H, the Angle/Stephanie/HHH love triangle. 2000 was such an improvement on 1999 that it's hard to put into words. One of their worst years ever creatively (and in-ring) followed by one of their best.

Peter Griffin
May 1st, 2013, 7:15 PM
The fact that Russo, to this day, thinks hes the creative genius behind all WWE's success in those days makes me chuckle yet angry at the same time.

lotjx
May 1st, 2013, 7:22 PM
Attitude saved wrestling. It was not even close to being hot or cool. It was considered a thing for kids or the mentally challenged. Then, all of the sudden it became the show college kids got together to watch and girls were wearing the t-shirts. If you are talking about the precious work rate, fuck that. Work rate is overrated, its all about what the fans remember. The fans remember Austin 3:16, Hell in a cell, Rock's promos and DX. That is the reason 10 years later a large group of those people are main eventing Mania. I can almost guarantee no one is going to remember the PG era as positive as fans from the Attitude Era remember those years.

As much as 2000 was an improvement, the Wrestlemania main event of 2000 ended with garbage in the ring and the three months of stupidity of HHH/Rock when it should have ended at Backlash or at Mania. Commissioner Foley saved the summer only to be hamstring by who hit Austin.

wardy
May 1st, 2013, 9:36 PM
1999 was quality you cunts.

The Law
May 1st, 2013, 10:13 PM
It was not. The booking was nonsenicle and absurdly dependent on hot shots. The WWF Title changed hands 13 times that year.

-The absurd Halftime Heat Empty Arena Match between Rock and Mankind, one of the worst matches in history when you factor in that it was meant to expose many people to wrestling for their first time. Rather than a normal match in front of a hot crowd (and they would have been hot to see Foley get the belt back) we get a pre-taped comedy match with no crowd. Took away all of the things that were great about the Attitude Era: no hijinks with Vince and Austin, no hot crowd, no real drama. Instead, we get Rock making jokes and the absurd POV forklift pin.

-Jobbing out Big Show. He debuts and immediately proceeds to lose all of his PPV matches. And lose to Austin on the Raw before Wrestlemania 15. They have the most talented giant in the history of wrestling, and they have him lose. All the time. And they do Austin vs. Big Show, the Attitude Era equivalent of Hogan vs. Andre, a massive match if properly built and promoted...on Raw. Give it away, in full.

-Austin dropping the title to Taker at Over the Edge. They just couldn't resist taking the belt off Austin. All of his title runs were too short. Pure hot shotting here. No compelling reason for Austin to lose the title or Taker to get it.

-Dragging out the Austin/McMahon feud. Saint Valentine's Day Massacre and Wrestlemania should have ended it. The feud had run its course, it was time to try new things. Instead, they just kept going back to that well even though there was no water left. Why? Because they had no other ideas.

-Vince McMahon being the Greater Power. So he had Undertaker torment him and his family for months, kidnap and rape his daughter... why? To fool Austin? What difference did it make? One of the worst reveals in the history of wrestling. This could have been a great storyline, and they chose the absolutely worst person for it to be. They could have created a new nemesis for Austin, instead they just reset the Austin/McMahon feud.

-Billy Gunn being King of the Ring. Billy Gunn sucked. Then we got to watch them try to push him for a few months. Not good times.

-Changing the Summerslam main event over and over. Try to follow this: It was initially announced as Austin vs. Undertaker vs. Triple H. Then they removed Undertaker and it was just Austin vs. Triple H. Then they had Chyna win a match to get Triple H's spot. Then they added Mankind to make it Austin vs. Chyna vs. Mankind. Finally, Triple H won Chyna's place in the match. According to legend, Russo wanted to do Austin vs. Chyna. Also, he may have suggested putting the title on Chyna. I can just picture him pitching this to McMahon while Cornette, JR, and Pat Patterson try to kill him with their minds.

-Mankind winning at Summerslam instead of Triple H. If you're going to build around Triple H, put the guy over at the big show. Rumors have suggested Austin didn't want to job to Triple H, but he apparently had no problem jobbing to him at No Mercy two months later.

-Triple H losing the title to Vince. What the fuck? Again, this is just Russo bullshit. "Oh man, it will get people talking! It would be so shocking!" It was shocking because it was stupid bullshit. Who got over because of it? It might have popped a better rating for Smackdown, but at the expensive of making the title and Triple H look like shit.

-Big Show beating Triple H for the title at Survivor Series. Neither guy had any chance: Big Show was a lameduck champion. And Triple H does another high profile job.

-Vince getting to fight Triple H instead of Test. Why put over a new star when you can have a non-wrestler in the main event instead? They wanted to recapture the Austin/McMahon magic, but it wasn't happening. Test was getting really over at this point and if they had given him the shot at Triple H they could have made a new star.

That's before I get into the garbage in the midcard. Seriously, 1999 is probably my least favorite year of wrestling ever. And it's sandwiched between two of my favorite years.

Hero!
May 1st, 2013, 10:24 PM
You forgot McMahon winning the Rumble. Hell of a year that Vince had!

Ringo
May 2nd, 2013, 12:03 AM
I love 1999 but the wrestling was absolutely awful and much of the writing was completely stupid by any standard. It was a hell of a ride though. PRIME RUSSO.

mth
May 2nd, 2013, 12:13 AM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Law again.

Aw phooey.

G-Fresh
May 2nd, 2013, 1:34 AM
According to legend, Russo wanted to do Austin vs. Chyna. Also, he may have suggested putting the title on Chyna. I can just picture him pitching this to McMahon while Cornette, JR, and Pat Patterson try to kill him with their minds.

I would have quit watching and not just while she had the belt. That would be it for me. It's bad enough that she shit on the wonderful legacy of the IC belt. They might as well just retire it cause it will never again be what it once was. Women have absolutely no place in any mens division, not just wrestling. I don't give a fuck how big their clits are.

OK I probably would have started watching again cause I'm addicted to wrestling and was raised on WWF. ECW would have taken over as my favorite promotion though. WCW wouldn't have even been an option.

Ringo
May 2nd, 2013, 2:04 AM
This isn't really about the Attitude Era.

Favourite promotions since I've been watching wrestling:
98-01 - WWE (obviously)
02-04 - Didn't watch wrestling
05-06 - WWE/ROH (ROH was on fire during this period but I'm a big fan of Smackdown during these years - great matches in both years and 2006 was just bizarre and entertaining)
07-09 - WWE, probably with a bit of crazy TNA in the middle when Impact > Raw
10-Present - New Japan

My list of grievances with the WWE product has definitely increased over the last couple of years. Between 05 and 09 I found the wrestling on a weekly basis to be better than at any point in WWE's history and the great moments were up there with the best of 00-01, even if they were less frequent. Since then the PPVs have generally been very strong and they've accumulated a roster of guys I care about - but they don't necessarily book them well, Smackdown has generally been forgotten and the World title's prestige has suffered as a result, many roster members are less likely to be given much of a chance, the production is lacking in energy, the commentary is mostly terrible, they tend to play things "safe" etc.

TNA's booking is probably better than WWE's at the moment - possibly because they're copying 97 WCW to such an extent - but there we go.

Unless things suddenly get better, when I start working during the week again and have less time to watch wrestling I imagine I will stick to NXT and PPVs.

Cewsh
May 2nd, 2013, 2:09 AM
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. You're going to be starting some shit with me if you're saying TNA's current booking is anything but an abhorrent disaster.

Vice
May 2nd, 2013, 2:27 AM
Wait.

RINGO is saying that TNA's booking is better than WWE's right now, and Cewsh is throwing down the gauntlet?

I think I'm on the wrong forum...

McBain
May 2nd, 2013, 2:30 AM
Women have absolutely no place in any mens division, not just wrestling. I don't give a fuck how big their clits are.
.

:rofl:

Chris
May 2nd, 2013, 2:31 AM
It's interesting that you discredit it so out of hand. I don't think the actual theory behind that is really all that arguable. People view things as being better than they really were due to nostalgia. It's a pretty common and identifiable phenomenon. It would be wrong to say that everyone does that, or that the people that do are always wrong to do so. But it is still very much a thing that happens.

Not sure what there is to scrutinize.
The use of that argument in these discussions should definitely be scrutinised. When someone is criticising the current product and saying how WWE used to do things better in the past, the suggestion that the person simply can't look back at the past objectively is a strawman argument. I've seen it happen on this forum many times over the years, and elsewhere. Of course nostalgia happens, but too often that point has been used as a cheap way of shutting down someone's argument by making their position seem irrational from the get-go. I'm glad that this thread has actually discussed the pros and cons of the era in depth. We remember the most exciting or surprising bits of 1999, and some of those aspects could be learned from with regard to the current product, but some of the decisions that year were pretty bad as The Law has outlined.

Peter Griffin
May 2nd, 2013, 3:29 AM
TNA's booking is probably better than WWE's at the moment
.

Good one.

JP
May 2nd, 2013, 4:57 AM
It was not. The booking was nonsenicle and absurdly dependent on hot shots. The WWF Title changed hands 13 times that year.

-The absurd Halftime Heat Empty Arena Match between Rock and Mankind, one of the worst matches in history when you factor in that it was meant to expose many people to wrestling for their first time. Rather than a normal match in front of a hot crowd (and they would have been hot to see Foley get the belt back) we get a pre-taped comedy match with no crowd. Took away all of the things that were great about the Attitude Era: no hijinks with Vince and Austin, no hot crowd, no real drama. Instead, we get Rock making jokes and the absurd POV forklift pin.

-Jobbing out Big Show. He debuts and immediately proceeds to lose all of his PPV matches. And lose to Austin on the Raw before Wrestlemania 15. They have the most talented giant in the history of wrestling, and they have him lose. All the time. And they do Austin vs. Big Show, the Attitude Era equivalent of Hogan vs. Andre, a massive match if properly built and promoted...on Raw. Give it away, in full.

-Austin dropping the title to Taker at Over the Edge. They just couldn't resist taking the belt off Austin. All of his title runs were too short. Pure hot shotting here. No compelling reason for Austin to lose the title or Taker to get it.

-Dragging out the Austin/McMahon feud. Saint Valentine's Day Massacre and Wrestlemania should have ended it. The feud had run its course, it was time to try new things. Instead, they just kept going back to that well even though there was no water left. Why? Because they had no other ideas.

-Vince McMahon being the Greater Power. So he had Undertaker torment him and his family for months, kidnap and rape his daughter... why? To fool Austin? What difference did it make? One of the worst reveals in the history of wrestling. This could have been a great storyline, and they chose the absolutely worst person for it to be. They could have created a new nemesis for Austin, instead they just reset the Austin/McMahon feud.

-Billy Gunn being King of the Ring. Billy Gunn sucked. Then we got to watch them try to push him for a few months. Not good times.

-Changing the Summerslam main event over and over. Try to follow this: It was initially announced as Austin vs. Undertaker vs. Triple H. Then they removed Undertaker and it was just Austin vs. Triple H. Then they had Chyna win a match to get Triple H's spot. Then they added Mankind to make it Austin vs. Chyna vs. Mankind. Finally, Triple H won Chyna's place in the match. According to legend, Russo wanted to do Austin vs. Chyna. Also, he may have suggested putting the title on Chyna. I can just picture him pitching this to McMahon while Cornette, JR, and Pat Patterson try to kill him with their minds.

-Mankind winning at Summerslam instead of Triple H. If you're going to build around Triple H, put the guy over at the big show. Rumors have suggested Austin didn't want to job to Triple H, but he apparently had no problem jobbing to him at No Mercy two months later.

-Triple H losing the title to Vince. What the fuck? Again, this is just Russo bullshit. "Oh man, it will get people talking! It would be so shocking!" It was shocking because it was stupid bullshit. Who got over because of it? It might have popped a better rating for Smackdown, but at the expensive of making the title and Triple H look like shit.

-Big Show beating Triple H for the title at Survivor Series. Neither guy had any chance: Big Show was a lameduck champion. And Triple H does another high profile job.

-Vince getting to fight Triple H instead of Test. Why put over a new star when you can have a non-wrestler in the main event instead? They wanted to recapture the Austin/McMahon magic, but it wasn't happening. Test was getting really over at this point and if they had given him the shot at Triple H they could have made a new star.

That's before I get into the garbage in the midcard. Seriously, 1999 is probably my least favorite year of wrestling ever. And it's sandwiched between two of my favorite years.

Oh my Lord above, give me strength.

Your points, in order;

You might not have enjoyed Halftime Heat. I might not have enjoyed Halftime Heat as much as I might have. Isn't the point. It succeeded brilliantly in what it set out to achieve, new fans were actually made from watching it (remember, lots of people like that comedy, throw away stuff, especially back then) and it remains one of the most watched pro wrestling matches of all time. In terms of a WWE title change, it may be right up there at the top.

I think you're forgetting that the WWE were fighting tooth and nail for viewers at that point with WCW. They had to give some massive matches away for free on RAW. Quite frankly, I wish they still did. And I take issue with Austin/Show being that era's Hogan/Andre. Hogan/Show was that era's Hogan/Andre.

They took the title off Austin because Austin was always better - when face - at chasing the title rather than actually holding it. He says this himself.

They carried on the Austin/McMahon feud probably not because they lacked other ideas - how would you know if they did anyway - but because it was still massively over and continued to be. If something is working, why would you drop it? That would be madness.

One of the worst? My actual Christ mate, from the way you're describing the attitude era I'm amazed you're still a fan now. McMahon being the Greater Power was one of the best things they did during that era. Perfectly set-up, it showed McMahon to be dark, bitter, twisted, willing to sacrifice anything to get revenge. It also helped Austin re-affirm his anti-hero status by helping the innocent, despite their association to McMahon.

Billy Gunn. Yeah. Give you that one.

Concerning the SummerSlam main event, weren't there quite a few injury problems they had to deal with during the build which meant last minute re-writes?

According to Foley him winning at SummerSlam was due to the fact they needed to take the belt of Austin but because Ventura was the special guest referee they didn't want to have him raise the hand of a heel victor. Utterly stupid, I will agree. But it meant Mankind became a 3 time champion, so I'm not going to complain too much about it.

McMahon winning the belt made sense and fit into the storyline perfectly. Listen to the reaction from the crowd. That's not a shock for shock sake reaction - nothing like it - it's a passionate, elated crowd who have bought into this reformed character fighting for his honour, having help from his former enemies and seeing who was now the biggest villain on the scene get what was coming to him. Calling it a Russo-esque move is to lazily dismiss it without looking into it properly.

Big Show won the title because of the last minute change to the match, they needed a face win. And it's actually an okay moment, crowd were behind his victory. Also, it gave us the following Big Show vs. Bossman feud, which is one of the greatest things to have ever graced the Earth.

Come on man, Test? As much as he was over at points he was never going to be anything but mid-card.

JP
May 2nd, 2013, 5:00 AM
By the way, just to say, I agree with the shouts that in terms of in ring action 1999 was probably the worst of the bunch.

But story related, as most of my response to Law was based on, they've not done much better outside of 2001 (best year ever official ever always ever).

G-Fresh
May 2nd, 2013, 5:01 AM
R.I.P. to the guy. Test might have been the nicest dude around. He was the worst wrestler of our generation. The best thing they could have done with him was put a mask on him and never let him speak.

McBain
May 2nd, 2013, 5:39 AM
Pff, worst wrestler of our generation!

He was more than a solid worker. Had a great selection of matches: Steiner, Lesnar and Edge off the top of my head. Granted he couldn't talk for shit.

JP
May 2nd, 2013, 5:45 AM
I could listen to Test talk for hours, he sounded like a drowning moose.

chatty
May 2nd, 2013, 6:09 AM
This isn't really about the Attitude Era.

Favourite promotions since I've been watching wrestling:
98-01 - WWE (obviously)
02-04 - Didn't watch wrestling
05-06 - WWE/ROH (ROH was on fire during this period but I'm a big fan of Smackdown during these years - great matches in both years and 2006 was just bizarre and entertaining)
07-09 - WWE, probably with a bit of crazy TNA in the middle when Impact > Raw
10-Present - New Japan

My list of grievances with the WWE product has definitely increased over the last couple of years. Between 05 and 09 I found the wrestling on a weekly basis to be better than at any point in WWE's history and the great moments were up there with the best of 00-01, even if they were less frequent. Since then the PPVs have generally been very strong and they've accumulated a roster of guys I care about - but they don't necessarily book them well, Smackdown has generally been forgotten and the World title's prestige has suffered as a result, many roster members are less likely to be given much of a chance, the production is lacking in energy, the commentary is mostly terrible, they tend to play things "safe" etc.

TNA's booking is probably better than WWE's at the moment - possibly because they're copying 97 WCW to such an extent - but there we go.

Unless things suddenly get better, when I start working during the week again and have less time to watch wrestling I imagine I will stick to NXT and PPVs.

Damn, in 02-04 WWE probably had there best years as an all round promotion, great wrestlers, great matches, good feuds, roster was stacked.

Sure the shitty Invasion angle was in there but even through that they managed to put some decent stuff on fairly regularly.

Hero!
May 2nd, 2013, 6:09 AM
I always thought Test had the greatest finisher ever. The pump handle slam had a cool set up and the move itself looked awesome. As a kid, I was genuinely convinced that Test was a brilliant wrestler of a big man.

:nono:

G-Fresh
May 2nd, 2013, 6:31 AM
He was doomed from the start. It wasn't all his fault. He couldn't help it that Motley Crue sucks mad dicks. Fuck. Motley Crue couldn't help it.

McBain
May 2nd, 2013, 6:33 AM
I always thought Test had the greatest finisher ever. The pump handle slam had a cool set up and the move itself looked awesome. As a kid, I was genuinely convinced that Test was a brilliant wrestler of a big man.

:nono:

I was called TestKnowsBest ffs. :nono:

Not big on the Pumpandle, was more of a Test Drive fan.

Ringo
May 2nd, 2013, 6:42 AM
1. I've never been a massive TNA hater?!

2. To be fair I haven't been watching Impact for very long... but I've been enjoying it lately. A bunch of compelling characters, all revolving around the best heel going. Loving the evolution of AJ and everyone knows I'm obsessed with stables. MATT MORGAN is actually interesting right now so the writers must have some ability. I like that they try new things even if some don't work and I like the fact they only have 4 PPVs now so are putting on big well built matches on Impact. I also liked the first One Night Only show. For me the AJ thing is clearly designed to climax at their biggest show of the year... 6 months from now. I like long term planning in my wrestling and there seems to be absolutely none in WWE right now.

3. I love and miss the handsome he-man that is Test but if he's a good worker then I'm not sure what a poor one would look like.

4. Stopped watching just before Wrestlemania X8. I think the 02 Rumble was the last PPV I saw live. I didn't stop because I felt the product was poor but I was 12 and other things were suddenly more important. Also everyone at school had stopped watching by then. Then around November '04 I accidentally caught a couple of highlights shows and before I knew what I'd done I was into wrestling again. Since that time I have watched plenty of stuff from 2002-2004 and I like those years (some terribly weak single-brand PPVs aside) but I'm not sure what chatty is going on about.

McBain
May 2nd, 2013, 6:54 AM
Are you saying Test was in the same league as Rob Terry?

G-Fresh
May 2nd, 2013, 6:56 AM
There's another fuckin borefest.

Ringo
May 2nd, 2013, 6:59 AM
Is Rob Terry a "handsome he-man"? ;)

But yeah Big Rob is pretty awful at wrestling. Test would probably be in the below average category for me.

Reminds me, should get that thread going again :chin:

Andy
May 2nd, 2013, 7:51 AM
It's funny looking back at 1999 as a smark because you get a totally different perspective. Yeah, looking back you can question some of the decisions, some of the quality but that ignores the context of it. 1999 was the absolute height of the Attitude Era. You had more people tuning in than ever before and all that a lot of these people knew was Austin feuding with McMahon, mad violence, anything can happen, regular title changes etc. It didn't matter how objectively bad it was, people absolutely loved it, so it was always going to continue to happen like that until something stopped it (Austin's injury).

I wonder if Austin was in perfectly good health, how long the McMahon/Austin feud would've gone on for. It would've taken a lot longer for Trips to reach that level, Rock may not have turned face for years, Angle might not have won the title, maybe they even would've held off the Invasion angle.

As it was, Austin having time off for surgery was absolutely brilliant for the company. In the time he was away, Triple H, The Rock, Kurt Angle, Undertaker (reestablished), Chris Benoit and Chris Jericho were established as credible main eventers. Plus when he came back they strung out the revenge stuff perfectly to go right up till the time where he started his feud with Rock for Mania.

chatty
May 2nd, 2013, 8:00 AM
1. I've never been a massive TNA hater?!

2. To be fair I haven't been watching Impact for very long... but I've been enjoying it lately. A bunch of compelling characters, all revolving around the best heel going. Loving the evolution of AJ and everyone knows I'm obsessed with stables. MATT MORGAN is actually interesting right now so the writers must have some ability. I like that they try new things even if some don't work and I like the fact they only have 4 PPVs now so are putting on big well built matches on Impact. I also liked the first One Night Only show. For me the AJ thing is clearly designed to climax at their biggest show of the year... 6 months from now. I like long term planning in my wrestling and there seems to be absolutely none in WWE right now.

3. I love and miss the handsome he-man that is Test but if he's a good worker then I'm not sure what a poor one would look like.

4. Stopped watching just before Wrestlemania X8. I think the 02 Rumble was the last PPV I saw live. I didn't stop because I felt the product was poor but I was 12 and other things were suddenly more important. Also everyone at school had stopped watching by then. Then around November '04 I accidentally caught a couple of highlights shows and before I knew what I'd done I was into wrestling again. Since that time I have watched plenty of stuff from 2002-2004 and I like those years (some terribly weak single-brand PPVs aside) but I'm not sure what chatty is going on about.

Match Quality was probably the best era of wrestling imo, couldn't be bothered to think them all up so just copied and pasted some from other sites:

Chris Jericho vs The Rock - Royal Rumble
The Undertaker vs Ric Flair (No DQ) - Wrestlemania 18
The Rock vs Hulk Hogan - Wrestlemania 18
Tajiri vs Billy Kidman - Backlash
Eddie Guerrero vs Rob Van Dam (Ladder) - RAW 5/27
The Undertaker vs Jeff Hardy (Ladder) - RAW 7/1
The Undertaker vs The Rock vs Kurt Angle - Vengeance
Rey Mysterio vs Kurt Angle - Summerslam
Chris Benoit vs Rob Van Dam - Summerslam
Shawn Michaels vs Triple H (Unsanctioned) - Summerslam
The Rock vs Brock Lesnar - Summerslam
Chris Benoit vs Kurt Angle - Unforgiven
Eddie Guerrero vs Edge (No DQ) - Smackdown 9/26
Kane vs Chris Jericho/Christian vs Jeff Hardy/Rob Van Dam vs The Dudleys (TLC) - RAW 10/7
Chris Benoit/Kurt Angle vs Rey Mysterio/Edge - No Mercy
Brock Lesnar vs The Undertaker (Hell In A Cell) - No Mercy
Chris Benoit/Kurt Angle vs Rey Mysterio/Edge (2/3 Falls) - Smackdown 11/7
Rey Mysterio vs Eddie Guerrero - Smackdown 11/14
Rey Mysterio/Edge vs Los Guerreros vs Chris Benoit/Kurt Angle - (Elimination) - Survivor Series
Triple H vs Shawn Michaels vs Rob Van Dam vs Chris Jericho vs Booker T vs Kane (Elimination Chamber) - Survivor Series
Kurt Angle vs Chris Benoit vs Edge vs Eddie Guerrero (Elimination) - Smackdown 12/5
Eddie Guerrero vs Chris Benoit - Armageddon
Kurt Angle vs Chris Benoit - Royal Rumble
Shawn Michaels vs Chris Jericho - Wrestlemania XIX
The Rock vs Steve Austin - Wrestlemania XIX
Kurt Angle vs Brock Lesnar - Wrestlemania XIX
Los Guerreros vs World's Greatest Tag Team - Backlash
Brock Lesnar vs The Big Show (Stretcher) - Judgement Day
Matt Hardy vs Rey Mysterio - Smackdown 5/6
Chris Benoit vs Matt Hardy - Smackdown 7/17
The Undertaker vs John Cena - Vengeance
Billy Kidman/Rey Mysterio vs World's Greatest Tag Team - Vengeance
Chris Benoit vs Eddie Guerrero - Vengeance
Brock Lesnar vs Kurt Angle vs The Big Show - Vengeance
Goldberg vs Chris Jericho - Bad Blood
Brock Lesnar vs Kurt Angle - Summerslam
Kurt Angle vs John Cena - No Mercy
Randy orton vs Shawn Michaels - Unforgiven
Kurt Angle vs The Undertaker - Smackdown 9/2
Kurt Angle vs Brock Lesnar (Ironman) - Smackdown 9/18
Tajiri vs Rey Mysterio - No Mercy
Christian vs Rob Van Dam (Ladder) - RAW 9/29
Shawn Michaels/Rob Van Dam/Booker T/The Dudleys vs Randy Orton/Chris Jericho/Christian/Mark Henry/Scott Steiner (Elimination) - Survivor Series
Rob Van Dam vs Randy Orton - Armageddon
Brock Lesnar vs Chris Benoit - Smackdown 12/4
Brock Lesnar vs Rey Mysterio - Smackdown 12/11
Triple H vs Shawn Michaels - RAW 12/29
Triple H vs Shawn Michaels (Last Man Standing) - Royal Rumble
The Royal Rumble - Royal Rumble
Chris Benoit vs Shawn Michaels - RAW 2/16
Rey Mysterio vs Chavo Guerrero - No Way Out
Brock Lesnar vs Eddie Guerrero - No Way Out
Eddie Guerrero vs Rey Mysterio - Smackdown 3/18
Chris Jericho vs Christian - Wrestlemania XX
Randy Orton/Ric Flair/Batista vs Mick Foley/The Rock - Wrestlemania XX
Eddie Guerrero vs Kurt Angle - Wrestlemania XX
Triple H vs Chris Benoit vs Shawn Michaels - Wrestlemania XX
Chris Benoit/Shawn Michaels/Mick Foley/Shelton Benjamin vs Triple H/Randy Orton/Ric Flair/Batista - RAW 4/12
Eddie Guerrero vs The Big Show - Smackdown 4/15
Randy Orton vs Mick Foley (Hardcore) - Backlash
Chris Benoit vs Shawn Michaels vs Triple H - Backlash
Eddie Guerrero vs JBL - Judgement Day
Chris Benoit vs Shawn Michaels - RAW 5/3
Chris Benoit/Edge vs Randy Orton/Batista - RAW 5/17
Chris Benoit vs Kane - Bad Blood
Triple H vs Shawn Michaels (Hell In A Cell) - Bad Blood
Chris Benoit/Chris Jericho/Edge vs Randy Orton/Ric Flair/Batista (Elimination) - RAW 6/14
Rey Mysterio vs Chavo Guerrero - The Great American Bash
Eddie Guerrero vs JBL (Texas Bullrope) - The Great American Bash
Randy Orton vs Chris Jericho - RAW 5/7
JBL vs Eddie Guerrero (Steel Cage) - Smackdown 7/15
Edge vs Randy Orton - RAW 7/19
Chris Benoit vs Randy Orton - Summerslam
Randy Orton vs Chris Benoit - RAW 8/16
Billy Kidman vs Paul London - No Mercy
Shelton Benjamin vs Christian - Survivor Series
JBL vs The Undertaker vs Eddie Guerrero vs Booker T - Armageddon
Edge vs Randy Orton - RAW 12/13


The Roster at that time included: HHH, Shawn Michaels, Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, RVD, Booker T, Edge, Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar, Big Show, Christian, Randy Orton, Ric Flair, JBL, Rey Mysterio, Undertaker and Kane as the main core, obviously some just teetering on the main event, others have their main stint there and then the ones who are always there.

You then had guys like Goldberg, Hogan, Nash, Hall, Steiner etc make appearances, some bombed, others had short successful stints but at the same time they were initally exciting to see come over/back even if they didn't do anything particuarly good.

Lots of people in the IC, Euro, Hardcore, Lightheavyweight, tag and divas scenes keeping it interesting as well - Tajiri, Christian, Helms, Molly, Noble, WGTT, Jamal/Rosey, DDP,. Trish, Lita, Regal, loads of others who I've probably forgot

I also believe Bishoff had just came back in that period and had a good run as GM.

wardy
May 2nd, 2013, 9:29 AM
It's funny how I think 1999 was awesome for most of the reasons that The Law listed. The Higher power angle was brilliant and the constant title changes were irrelevant, it did nothing to devalue the belt at all - that happened later.

Peter Griffin
May 2nd, 2013, 9:37 AM
Didnt Rock and Foley trade the title about 5 times from January to March 1999? That's pretty mental, and if it happened today, most people would be slagging it off.

Kimura Kid
May 2nd, 2013, 9:38 AM
I honestly am in awe of some of the posters here. you guys are ubber intelligent and knowledgeable about wrestling. Like walking fucking encyclopedia's!!

How do you remember the week by week occurances of events from 14 years ago? Spots and matches of Raw not even PPV's!!

You guys have taught me a lot since I've joined. Not only about the present but the past as well. :yes:

McBain
May 2nd, 2013, 10:45 AM
Is Rob Terry a "handsome he-man"? ;)

But yeah Big Rob is pretty awful at wrestling. Test would probably be in the below average category for me.

Reminds me, should get that thread going again :chin:

You really should.

The Law
May 2nd, 2013, 10:55 AM
1) Rock lost the title to Mankind on December 28, 1998 (aired on tape delay on Raw on January 4, 1999)

2) Mankind lost the title to Rock in an "I Quit" Match at the Royal Rumble on January 24.

3) Rock lost the title to Mankind in the Empty Arena Match at Halftime Heat on January 26 (Aired on tape delay during halftime of the Super Bowl on January 31)

4) Mankind lost the title to Rock in a Ladder Match on Raw on February 15.

So four title changes in a span of 48 days. I'll actually offer a qualified defense of this. Foley winning the title was a great moment. However, Rock vs. Austin was the way to go for Wrestlemania, so Rock had to get the title back. They wanted to do a title change for Halftime Heat (again, reasonably), so they had Rock win the title back from Mankind at Royal Rumble and drop it to him a Halftime Heat. But once again, Rock needed the title back so he could face Austin at Wrestlemania. I can understand why they did that and I might very well have done the same thing in their situation, although I may have just had Foley's first title win be at Halftime Heat. Of all the things they did in 1999 that I hated, this one is pretty low on the list.

Cewsh
May 2nd, 2013, 11:00 AM
The use of that argument in these discussions should definitely be scrutinised. When someone is criticising the current product and saying how WWE used to do things better in the past, the suggestion that the person simply can't look back at the past objectively is a strawman argument. I've seen it happen on this forum many times over the years, and elsewhere. Of course nostalgia happens, but too often that point has been used as a cheap way of shutting down someone's argument by making their position seem irrational from the get-go. I'm glad that this thread has actually discussed the pros and cons of the era in depth. We remember the most exciting or surprising bits of 1999, and some of those aspects could be learned from with regard to the current product, but some of the decisions that year were pretty bad as The Law has outlined.

I don't really think it's ever used to entirely discredit what someone else is saying, at least not that I've seen. But it is a factor, just as much as me not having watched the Attitude Era at the time, and only catching it in retrospect years later is a factor. But this only applies if someone is using a direct comparison to older wrestling in order to put down things going on right now, but that is an inherently irrational point of view, since the person doing the comparing is almost invariably watching from a totally different perspective than they were then.

Remembering events that unfolded when you were a fresh faced new fan that everything was new to couldn't be more different from watching events unfold as someone with the burden of knowledge and perspective. And unfortunately, a vast percentage of the people who are into wrestling today took that exact trajectory to get here. We all have nostalgic biases, and while the current product has its own issues that deserve to be scrutinized, refusing to acknowledge that the era you might be comparing it to had just as many makes for bad discussions.



2. To be fair I haven't been watching Impact for very long... but I've been enjoying it lately. A bunch of compelling characters, all revolving around the best heel going. Loving the evolution of AJ and everyone knows I'm obsessed with stables. MATT MORGAN is actually interesting right now so the writers must have some ability. I like that they try new things even if some don't work and I like the fact they only have 4 PPVs now so are putting on big well built matches on Impact. I also liked the first One Night Only show. For me the AJ thing is clearly designed to climax at their biggest show of the year... 6 months from now. I like long term planning in my wrestling and there seems to be absolutely none in WWE right now.

You are genuinely the first person I have seen be so positive about TNA's decision making in a very long time. Interesting. I don't agree about any of it but AJ, but I'm glad that voice is out there.



Is Rob Terry a "handsome he-man"? ;)

But yeah Big Rob is pretty awful at wrestling.

:mad:

You have made a powerful enemy this day.


Reminds me, should get that thread going again :chin:

...and now it's all better. :D

Andy
May 2nd, 2013, 11:51 AM
That ladder match between Mankind and Rock was great. Need to go back and watch that again.

Ringo
May 2nd, 2013, 12:35 PM
Responding to your post in TNA forum Cewsh. :)

Cewsh
May 2nd, 2013, 1:10 PM
:yes:

Chris
May 2nd, 2013, 2:31 PM
I don't really think it's ever used to entirely discredit what someone else is saying, at least not that I've seen. But it is a factor, just as much as me not having watched the Attitude Era at the time, and only catching it in retrospect years later is a factor. But this only applies if someone is using a direct comparison to older wrestling in order to put down things going on right now, but that is an inherently irrational point of view, since the person doing the comparing is almost invariably watching from a totally different perspective than they were then.

Remembering events that unfolded when you were a fresh faced new fan that everything was new to couldn't be more different from watching events unfold as someone with the burden of knowledge and perspective. And unfortunately, a vast percentage of the people who are into wrestling today took that exact trajectory to get here. We all have nostalgic biases, and while the current product has its own issues that deserve to be scrutinized, refusing to acknowledge that the era you might be comparing it to had just as many makes for bad discussions.
I can remember plenty of times where people's entire posts would be quoted, and the response would be "Attitude Era Syndrome". That's discrediting someone's argument out of hand. Nostalgia will always be a factor when we compare different eras, but the fact is that the jury is still out in terms of psychological research on the nature of nostalgia. It seems likely that it's multi-faceted, and dependent on the amount of time that has passed, quality of recall, mood, personality and other factors. That's why it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when I used to see someone arbitrarily decide that someone else was not being entirely objective, since there's no way to determine how "biased" they might be and occasionally it's just a strawman. There's really no reason to believe that comparing the past and the present is commonly fraught with difficulty, either - a problem in the present can often be solved by looking at how things were better in the past and what went wrong afterwards. It's a core feature of psychotherapy, to go completely off-topic. But like I said, this thread is a good example of how to have actually have a balanced discussion, and my original point was an off-hand comment about arguments in the IWC which I dislike.


By the way, just to say, I agree with the shouts that in terms of in ring action 1999 was probably the worst of the bunch.
But story related, as most of my response to Law was based on, they've not done much better outside of 2001 (best year ever official ever always ever).
2001 had some great stories, but some aspects of the invasion angle tarnish it a little. I still think 2000 is up there in terms of the majority of the roster being involved in decent - excellent stuff for an extended period of time. 2008 was also a pretty good balance of great stories, memorable matches and big moments like Cena's Rumble return and Punk winning the World Title. Michaels vs Batista and Michaels vs Jericho were two of the best feuds that WWE had put on for years at that point.

JP
May 2nd, 2013, 2:48 PM
Apart from the burial of certain people for seemingly no decent reason I actually have really good memories of much of the Invasion angle, I think it's somewhat unfairly viewed. Certainly retrospectively looking back through some of the angles, the energy you feel is incomparable to now. I think people think of what could have been and therefore view it unfavorably instead of viewing it for what it was, which was some brilliant and fun tv.

The one unforgivable thing they did was waste DDP. Genuinely respected, massively over, they wasted him. The amazing thing is, they brought him in brilliantly, the pop for his unveiling is still one of the loudest you will ever hear, goosebump inducing stuff.

Cewsh
May 2nd, 2013, 2:51 PM
The Invasion was good television that could have been great television. People get a little caught up in what could have been and act like what was there was garbage when it really wasn't.

Ringo
May 2nd, 2013, 2:54 PM
Yeah. 7 or 8 out of 10 when it should've been relatively easy to score a 10/10. Good PPVs, great matches, engaging feuds, compelling characters. But more of a regular angle than the ultimate climax to 10+ years of promotional rivalry.

Cewsh
May 2nd, 2013, 2:56 PM
I always go back to the fact that I knew nothing about WCW before the Invasion storyline. So to me, at the time, it was just an Invasion from a crazy new group of dudes. I wonder how much of the viewing audience the whole Promotional rivalry thing would have been lost on anyway. I certainly wouldn't have given a shit that Vince McMahon and Eric Bischoff hated each other when I have 16.

Chris
May 2nd, 2013, 4:00 PM
The King of the Ring to Summerslam period in 2001 was white hot television for the most part. I wasn't familiar with WCW very much, but it was genuinely exciting to see those guys invading WWF turf like Madison Square Garden. Some people wish that the nWo and Goldberg had been around at the time, but it could have been a case of too many egos to try and satisfy.

It's ironic that in a storyline based around an invasion by another promotion, the biggest success stories were often WWF guys elevating other WWF guys. That period firmly established Angle and Jericho as main eventers, and put a big spotlight on the likes of Kane, Test and Edge.

Morrison
May 2nd, 2013, 4:37 PM
I honestly am in awe of some of the posters here. you guys are ubber intelligent and knowledgeable about wrestling. Like walking fucking encyclopedia's!!

How do you remember the week by week occurances of events from 14 years ago? Spots and matches of Raw not even PPV's!!

You guys have taught me a lot since I've joined. Not only about the present but the past as well. :yes:
dude, it's the internet. youtube, wikipedia and torrents.

Vice
May 2nd, 2013, 4:46 PM
http://i.imgur.com/R4aVrqP.jpg

Does that mean nothing to you, Morrison?

You are hereby exiled.

Mark Hammer
May 2nd, 2013, 4:47 PM
The Invasion was good television that could have been great television. People get a little caught up in what could have been and act like what was there was garbage when it really wasn't.

I could not agree more. I remember being super pumped about Raws and which WCW face would show up next. I'll never forget how hard I popped when DDP unmasked himself (even if he did go on to job to the Undertaker and his wife). Truly exciting times for wrestling and I don't agree with the panning it seems to receive.

Brian M.
May 2nd, 2013, 4:56 PM
I agree with Chris that 2000 was probably the year the WWF got just about everything right. I believe it was the year they made the most money. Popularity was still way up as it was still technically the "Attitude Era". Plus you had such compelling storylines throughout the card. You had the emergence of Kurt Angle, Chris Jericho and the Radicals. You had Triple H and Kurt Angle fighting over Stephanie. There was the emergence of the tag team division as a force again. Foley was very entertaining as commissioner. Matches were generally very good not only on PPV but on free TV as well. The Right To Censor was a white hot act and the first real heels that everyone actively despised in quite some time. I'm missing a lot of stuff but it was an amazing year to be a wrestling fan and the one I probably look back on the most fondly.

The Rogerer
May 2nd, 2013, 5:02 PM
It was good television, but it was absolutely mental. It put us right back into McMahon dominated television (after it toned it down from things like the WM2000 main event) but to a degree that seemed more ridiculous. I can completely see why Vince was happy to let WCW burn, but the hope was that it could have been something better and yet it was destined to be anarchy.

One match I remember was Austin vs Angle at Summerslam 2001. I don't begrudge them having two of their own stars have a match that was brilliant in my memory, because they just didn't have the right people for that level. I think a lot of the bitterness was simply having Stephanie own ECW and what they did with DDP. The invasion also made things messy and you started to get a lack of stability. The roster had been pretty stable for a couple of years up to that point, and then things turned upside down.

ReDPath
May 2nd, 2013, 5:31 PM
LOL...

Attitude Era ruining wrestling...

That's like saying Hogans era ruined wrestling because we never got colorful characters, such as the ones we saw in Hogans era again later on.

Hogans era + Attitude Era + hell even the NEW GENERATION >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today

Why?

1. They protect everybody way too much physically, mostly because when they don't, they botch shit, and end up hurt because they aren't even properly trained anymore, literally 90% of all matches are generic brawls with some botched wrestling mixed in.

2. They ALL have the same look for the most part. How many fucking fit guys (who look like they were beach bums in a previous life) do they REALLY NEED?...I mean really...at least Hogans era and to an extent, the Atitude Era weren't afraid to allow skinny guys or fat, ugly fucking slobs get over with the crowd, or work good matches, etc....now their so afraid of giving us anything but a generic physique looking guy, or the tall guy who comes off like a fucking clown, instead of a monster.

LOL at the Attitude Era ruining wrestling.

Anyone whose anyone knows it all went to shit the day Vince decided it was a good idea to put away the only real competition he ever had.

Competition breeds creativity, something the current WWE severely lacks, and has lacked for a good number of years.

Need evidence?

How come every major title match/main event caliber match in the last decade or so at Mania has featured some combination of the following?

Cena
HHH
HBK
Lesnar
Angle
Rock
Taker
Bats
Punk
Jericho
Edge

And in recent years, to distract us from the fact that they have literally created almost nothing in terms of stars, those title matches basically take a back seat to the streak, because they had to build the streak even more to hide the fact that the title matches feature a bunch of guys who aren't very over/aren't cared about.

Brian M.
May 2nd, 2013, 5:35 PM
Wait, 90% of all matches are generic brawls with some botched moves mixed in? Are you confusing your tapes from 1999 with the product from today? Because they were fucking all about generic brawls in the Attitude Era.

Tainted Eclipse
May 2nd, 2013, 5:35 PM
1. They protect everybody way too much physically, mostly because when they don't, they botch shit, and end up hurt because they aren't even properly trained anymore, literally 90% of all matches are generic brawls with some botched wrestling mixed in.

i mean, you'd have to be either not be paying attention or completely irrational to not recognize that the standard of ring work recently has been leagues above what it was during the attitude era. really, your characterization there is MUCH more apt for the attitude era, to the point i almost wonder if the wwe actively wanted the wrestling to be worse so that austin wouldn't appear limited.

Tainted Eclipse
May 2nd, 2013, 5:35 PM
shut up brian m

Brian M.
May 2nd, 2013, 5:40 PM
lol sorry

I think the style was like that back then not so much because they were afraid of Austin looking limited, but because a lot of the guys they were pushing just weren't that great in the ring. Rock and Triple H hadn't fully developed yet, Foley was broken down already, Austin was always injured, Taker was just coming into his own as far as in-ring, Kane sucked, and the mid-card was full of not very good in the ring type of guys. I mean The Godfather got over as fuck but good lord was he bad in the ring. So the brawling hid EVERYONE'S limitations, not just Austin's.

Ringo
May 2nd, 2013, 5:45 PM
As Matthew would point out: Guys, it's ReDPath. He's not very easy to argue things with.

And I'm not going to count but I don't know that the list of guys involved in main event calibre matches in the previous decade would be much longer.

Zacharie
May 2nd, 2013, 5:46 PM
1. They protect everybody way too much physically, mostly because when they don't, they botch shit, and end up hurt because they aren't even properly trained anymore, literally 90% of all matches are generic brawls with some botched wrestling mixed in.

Don't these guys deserve to be protected after what we've seen go down in the past though? Guys like Benoit, Edge, Bret, HBK, and Austin have some pretty messed up medical issues as a result of not being protected enough. And I'm pretty sure those guys were properly trained. I'd like to see piledrivers and chair shots to the head too, but not if it means someone else's career or life getting cut short.

ReDPath
May 2nd, 2013, 5:49 PM
Tell me something fellas

Are you overly impressed with the technicalities, general high flying mechanics or overall fluid execution of matches that feature guys like Orton, Miz, Kingston, big E, the shield, etc?

I know im not.

To be fair, when I say what I say about point 1. Its more tied to Hogans era/New Generation rather than the Attitude Era. No argument there.

But when you look at those 3 eras, even that weak New Generation era.

- They just had that "IT" factor that I don't see when watching something today.

Today its...

- Overproduced
- Overhyped
- Repetitive
- Glossy

The company is a victim of its own successes. In that way, I suppose the Attitude Era did some damage long term, but then by the same logic, the same could be said for Hogans era, the NWO era, etc.

Zacharie
May 2nd, 2013, 5:56 PM
I can see how it's repetitive. Not sure about the other three things you mentioned. Can you give an example of each? Sounds like you expect them to use cheap equipment or something.

Tainted Eclipse
May 2nd, 2013, 6:04 PM
Tell me something fellas

Are you overly impressed with the technicalities, general high flying mechanics or overall fluid execution of matches that feature guys like Orton, Miz, Kingston, big E, the shield, etc?

im not entirely sure what any of that means, but yes im impressed with the quality and consistency of the ring work of the likes of sheamus, ziggler, cena, cesaro, bryan, show, henry, etc in general. even guys who kind of suck like kofi have at least more entertaining qualities in the ring than basically anyone did in the attitude era. people can love the attitude era and i get it, because television was definitely more exciting and compelling, but there is no argument to make that the wrestling wasn't terrible. theres not even any argument to make that wrestling in hogan's era was as good as it is now.

but yeah the overproduction is definitely my #1 complaint about wwe, its just aesthetically revolting.

ReDPath
May 2nd, 2013, 6:05 PM
I can see how it's repetitive. Not sure about the other three things you mentioned. Can you give an example of each? Sounds like you expect them to use cheap equipment or something.

- Overproduced - Telling us to pretend to care about everything, and everyone on twitter, plus yeah the way its lit, nothing like the other 3 eras
- Overhyped - Hyping us on matches that basically came off like standard Raw snooze fests (Rock/Cena II, HHH/Lesnar II, Cena/Miz back, etc)
- Glossy - As I said before, everybody basically has the same look...sorry its simply something that's not the case in those other 3 eras, or really even during WCW at all in the 90s

For whatever reason, they got really image conscious

Can't have skinny minny guys or fat ugly slobs working good to GREAT matches any more.

Guys like Bossman, Vader, Bam Bam, Zuna, One Man Gang, really some of the premiere big man workers of their time would NEVER make it in todays product.

They would all be retarded clowns, or monsters initially then become clowns, then future endeavored. None of them would have had the great matches in this era, that they had in their own eras.

Cewsh
May 2nd, 2013, 6:18 PM
Tell me something fellas

Are you overly impressed with the technicalities, general high flying mechanics or overall fluid execution of matches that feature guys like Orton, Miz, Kingston, big E, the shield, etc?

Yes. 100%, yes.

Say what you will about the rest of what they do, but Randy Orton and Kofi Kingston may be two of the most fluid wrestlers to ever exist.

The Law
May 2nd, 2013, 6:24 PM
The argument that today's wrestling features too many of the same guys in comparison to the Attitude Era is definitely a weak point. Can you name an Attitude Era main event that didn't feature Austin, Michaels, Taker, Triple H, or Rock? I'm pretty sure those four guys were involved in every main event from 1997 to 2003. Like, the first one I can think of that didn't involve any of them is Brock vs. Angle from Wrestlemania 19.

Also, the quality of ring work in today's product is much better than in the Attitude Era. The Attitude Era had many virtues, but ring-work generally wasn't one of them.

Matthew
May 2nd, 2013, 6:28 PM
As Matthew would point out: Guys, it's ReDPath. He's not very easy to argue things with.
FINALLY

Andy
May 2nd, 2013, 6:40 PM
I think part the reason I hated the Invasion stuff so much was because the initial PPV was so shit. Earn Hebner vs Nick Patrick for fucks sake.

Also for a lot of people (myself included) who hadn't seen a lot of WCW or ECW, it was just a bit of a clusterfuck. Suddenly they want us to think Stone Cold is turning face again after this massive heel turn a few months earlier. There's no more Rock, Trips is out, Foley is retired. Undertaker wasn't as over as others in the second half of the Attitude Era either. Then Stone Cold goes full on heel turn, suddenly everyone is hot for Angle, like he is majorly over. Then he turns heel. Then Jericho turns heel. As someone who had only really seen wrestling from the WWF in the Attitude Era at that point, it was hard to know who I was actually supposed to be behind. It was just overbooked in my opinion. But in some ways they had to do that because there was none of the real main eventers from WCW in the angle. Even as someone who hadn't seen a whole lot, I still knew that the likes of Hogan, Nash, Hall, Sting, Goldberg and Flair were missing. Yeah it would've been a hell of a job getting them all involved but it still felt like it wasn't done properly. The only saving grace of that period for me was that there were some really excellent matches.

JP
May 2nd, 2013, 6:43 PM
Tell me something fellas

Are you overly impressed with the technicalities, general high flying mechanics or overall fluid execution of matches that feature guys like Orton, Miz, Kingston, big E, the shield, etc?

I know im not.

Orton is technically perfect.

Not using hyperbole, I mean it, perfect.

chatty
May 2nd, 2013, 6:44 PM
The argument that today's wrestling features too many of the same guys in comparison to the Attitude Era is definitely a weak point. Can you name an Attitude Era main event that didn't feature Austin, Michaels, Taker, Triple H, or Rock? I'm pretty sure those four guys were involved in every main event from 1997 to 2003. Like, the first one I can think of that didn't involve any of them is Brock vs. Angle from Wrestlemania 19.

Also, the quality of ring work in today's product is much better than in the Attitude Era. The Attitude Era had many virtues, but ring-work generally wasn't one of them.


It depends, 1999 was poor overall for in ring work but everything around it was pretty damn good.

I actually like todays in ring work though, lots of good guys, its probably the only reason I still watch. Its the stories, feuds and predictability that needs improving in todays wrestling.

Cewsh
May 2nd, 2013, 6:45 PM
Orton is technically perfect.

Not using hyperbole, I mean it, perfect.

Yep. If anything, he's so flawless every night that we've become completely jaded to it and now it's dull to see him magically catch people out of midair EVERY FUCKING TIME.

Kimura Kid
May 2nd, 2013, 6:48 PM
Yep. If anything, he's so flawless every night that we've become completely jaded to it and now it's dull to see him magically catch people out of midair EVERY FUCKING TIME.


I was in the Raw chat when he landed that, marked out. The guy is fucking crisp.

chatty
May 2nd, 2013, 6:56 PM
I thought the Invasion angle was decent in terms of feuds and matches, problem was it just eneded up being WWE guys v WWE guys and wasn't much else to do with WCW and ECW - I mean who from that side of the roster who wasn't already in WWE got anything out of the whole angle - Booker T and RVD and Booker T got burried really, he just happened to hang around the main event scene whilst doing so.

I mean what were the main matches to come from the Invasion:

Angle v Austin - both WWE
Jericho v Rock - both WWE
Taker v DDP - 50/50 but DDP got burried
Dudleys v Hardys - both WWE
Edge v Test - both WWE
Rock, Jericho, Taker, Kane, Show v Shane, Booker, RVD, Angle, Austin - eight WWE

I mean the alliance was made up of Shane, Steph, Heyman, Austin, Booker, RVD, Dudleys, Rhyno, Raven, Kanyon, Kidman, Dreamer, Credible, DDP, Morris and Storm - most of who had already joined WWE prior to the angle and it didnt make much sense for them to change sides considering they already had a contract and were better of with WWE.

Tainted Eclipse
May 2nd, 2013, 7:06 PM
The invasion was definitely a disaster, I don't know how much reasonable argument there can be against that. The Invasion PPV did out of control high numbers for a minor PPV, people were obviously hot for the idea. I don't think there were any WWE fans during the Attitude era who weren't aware of WCW, which let's remember was also SUPER hot during most of the late 90s.

How much blame anyone deserves, I don't know. Logistically I have no idea how possible it was to get Goldberg, Flair, Nash, etc. around in time for the main angle. But what ended up happening was obviously a two-bit clusterfuck when it should have been one of the hottest things to ever happen in wrestling. But yeah, it got Angle unbelievably over.

JP
May 2nd, 2013, 7:06 PM
Yep. If anything, he's so flawless every night that we've become completely jaded to it and now it's dull to see him magically catch people out of midair EVERY FUCKING TIME.

It's why when he's working with people who aren't so gifted technically it hurts the appearance of the match.

Yes Sheamus, I'm looking at you.

JP
May 2nd, 2013, 7:07 PM
The invasion was definitely a disaster, I don't know how much reasonable argument there can be against that. The Invasion PPV did out of control high numbers for a minor PPV, people were obviously hot for the idea. I don't think there were any WWE fans during the Attitude era who weren't aware of WCW, which let's remember was also SUPER hot during most of the late 90s.

How much blame anyone deserves, I don't know. Logistically I have no idea how possible it was to get Goldberg, Flair, Nash, etc. around in time for the main angle. But what ended up happening was obviously a two-bit clusterfuck when it should have been one of the hottest things to ever happen in wrestling. But yeah, it got Angle unbelievably over.

I'd argue against that, but when more sober. Might make a thread actually, make for an interesting conversation.

Ringo
May 2nd, 2013, 7:13 PM
1999 holds a special place in my heart and I definitely look back on that year with rose tinted glasses. But the wrestling was pretty awful. The worst year ever in this regard.

2000 and 2001 had everything. But overall I would still probably take the wrestling from several years later.

The quality of TV wrestling in 2005 was pretty stellar. Rey, Eddie, Benoit, Jericho, Angle. A handful of excellent PPVs too (Wrestlemania, Vengeance, Summerslam come to mind). I remember how paint by numbers the writing was for much of the year but the flipside of that was the ring time they gave to the wrestlers to show what they could do.

2006 Smackdown was great. Rey in amazing form, Finlay was superb, Angle, Benoit, JBL, Regal, Booker, Lashley, Orton getting good, Matt Hardy when he was motivated. Loads of really good TV matches. Different styles too. The Raw PPVs were generally below average but the Smackdown shows were solid to great throughout the year.

2007 had Cena's phenomenal title reign where he was having great matches with everyone from Umaga to Lashley to fucking Khali. Batista also got good this year. The Rumble was a hell of a show, Survivor Series too. Raw had lots of good matches if I remember correctly.

2008 featured some great stories, stacked PPVs and a phenomenal Wrestlemania. This year remains my favourite year for PPVs if we're talking top to bottom match quality.

2009 was much of the same. Lots of good PPVs, Punk's real emergence in the Jeff feud. As those of us who actually watched it know, ECW was brilliant with Christian out wrestling everyone and giving a host of guys their best matches. Meanwhile over the Summer a group of guys on Smackdown were putting on really entertaining matches with each other - Punk, Morrison, Jeff, Edge, Rey, Jericho. The new Smackdown six as I liked to call them. There were notable matches on Superstars almost every week this year and in 2010 as well (credit to Chris Masters). Overall 2010 might be the weakest year for wrestling for some time but there was still a good amount of stuff there.

2011 and 2012 featured some genuine classics along with the continued emergence of new WWE talent like Bryan, Sheamus, Del Rio, Ziggler and Cesaro, replacing older guys as the work horses of the roster.

JP
May 2nd, 2013, 7:15 PM
Invasion thread created for specific discussion regarding it. :)

Andy
May 2nd, 2013, 7:17 PM
Yeah we should make a series.

Did the attitude era ruin wrestling?
Did the Invasion angle ruin wrestling?
Did Triple H ruin wrestling?
Did John Cena ruin wrestling?
Who will be the next to ruin wrestling?

JP
May 2nd, 2013, 7:19 PM
:squint:

You twist my thread into a monster!

The Law
May 2nd, 2013, 7:23 PM
Nice post. We should do a favorite and least favorite years in wrestling post...

Cewsh
May 2nd, 2013, 8:14 PM
I don't think there were any WWE fans during the Attitude era who weren't aware of WCW, which let's remember was also SUPER hot during most of the late 90s.

:wave:

Kimura Kid
May 2nd, 2013, 8:15 PM
How?

Jimmy Zero
May 2nd, 2013, 8:19 PM
Better lump me in with Cewsh, on that one.

I was aware of WCW, but rarely ever watched it. I didn't know who Booker T was until he came to the WWE. I knew Hogan, Hall, Nash, Goldberg (because he was so fucking huge during his streak), and Sting.

Badger
May 2nd, 2013, 8:24 PM
Watched it religiously up until the fingerpoke of doom, then dropped off after that though i still laughed at Vincent and Stevie Ray.

Judas Iscariot
May 2nd, 2013, 8:25 PM
:wave:

Yeah but you didn't even WATCH wrestling during that era.

You probably don't even watch it now.

You're just a sick person. A sick, sick person.

Hotbeef-Injection
May 2nd, 2013, 8:27 PM
My big issue with today is we get too much filler. Despite having more time than ever per week we have weak midcard feuds and barely any tag feuds. There is so much time dedicated to tout, twitter, recaps, "earlier tonight...", shilling takeaways, shilling merchandise, movie trailers, celebrity pandering. The attitude era made me think anything could happen at any minute. I'd better not touch that dial! It's why Zigglers title win worked so well - its a shake-up, it's unexpected and we wanted to see it. Its why Shield has worked - its a little anarchy in a world of Orton vs Barrett part million-and-one.

Tainted Eclipse
May 2nd, 2013, 8:30 PM
I was aware of WCW, but rarely ever watched it. I didn't know who Booker T was until he came to the WWE. I knew Hogan, Hall, Nash, Goldberg (because he was so fucking huge during his streak), and Sting.
well, yeah, thats what i mean; just about everyone would have cared about goldberg, nash, hall, hogan, to some extent bischoff, etc. running around, and understand how big a deal it would be.

Jimmy Zero
May 2nd, 2013, 8:31 PM
Yeah, in the Invasion angle thread, that's why I said it didn't work for me. I didn't know who any of the invaders were.

Merchant4Ever
May 2nd, 2013, 9:32 PM
Orton is technically perfect.

Not using hyperbole, I mean it, perfect.

Yea, character is stale as a 10-year-old bag of chips, but he is so fluid in the ring.

From now on, instead of doing promos, he should just put the microphone on a stand and hit it with a drop kick.

Excel
May 3rd, 2013, 4:19 PM
I think people are putting far too much emphasis on the big bumps and spots.

How many massive bumps did Austin take? Or Rock? Or HHH?

The simple reason why there are not as many fans now as there were then, that ratings and buyrates are down, is that the product simply isn't as good as it used to be.

If the attitude era 'ruined' wrestling, it was by being too entertaining to immediately follow.

Its like somebody saying that the MITB match totally ruined the divas match that just followed it. Nope. The divas match might have been hurt by following it, but lets be honest here, the divas match was shit anyway. Wrestling today isn't helped by being compared to the most amazing period in history, but to be fair, it's still shit even without the comparison.

I could list my reasons why it's shit, but we all have lives to get back to at some point.

Excel
May 3rd, 2013, 4:23 PM
For me the attitude era is the KotR 96 through to the Raw after Survivor Series 2001, where Ric Flair returned.
I agree with this. But I would say there's some padding and crossover in there too, and that the core of the era was march 1997 when raw is war debuted, to wm17, the week after wcw folded. Before this time the attitude was starting to show and after this it was starting to taper off.

It definitely died the raw after the first draft when they changed the set and the theme song. Watching that time period it feels like the whole company changed in that one week and there is a clear line dividing the eras right there.

Andy
May 3rd, 2013, 4:29 PM
To me the attitude era definitively ended at wm17

G-Fresh
May 3rd, 2013, 4:49 PM
The Attitude era ended for me when the name was changed.

Excel
May 3rd, 2013, 4:54 PM
I honestly am in awe of some of the posters here. you guys are ubber intelligent and knowledgeable about wrestling. Like walking fucking encyclopedia's!!

How do you remember the week by week occurances of events from 14 years ago? Spots and matches of Raw not even PPV's!!

You guys have taught me a lot since I've joined. Not only about the present but the past as well. :yes:
This itself is a testament to the attitude era. I won't speak for anyone else but despite me remembering most of the feuds, angles, matches, spots and title changes from month to month in those years, I can hardly remember anything from 2004 until last year. I sure cant tell you the order of champions, the ppv to ppv angles or anything. I remember some of the most major moments, but I'd struggle to tell you when they happened exactly. Yet I can tell you the month that big show debuted, or the event that undertaker returned as the American badass, or the exact raw that Austin attacked bret in the ambulance, or the show that vader got hardway'd in a fatal four way elimination match. And it goes on and on.

Every year back then felt distinctive. He'll every month did. The last five years more or less blurs together. I have no idea how long ago John Morrison turned face (or heel), or even when he left the company. I can't tell you how long ago the awesome Batista vs Cena match was where Dave quit the next night. I can't remember much of what has happened unless someone mentions it, and when and what I do remember, I can't distinguish it down to a year let alone a month or a particular show.

The Rogerer
May 3rd, 2013, 4:59 PM
I may be mis-remembering this but wasn't Smackdown broadcast earlier/being on UPN that made it a different rating to RAW, if not PG then something lighter? It was presented as a pre-watershed show in the UK.

My pet theory, if my memory is correct, is that Smackdown starting proper in August, you have a shift to a big part of the product becoming less raunchy, and then shortly after a big patch without Austin and Undertaker. In this era you then have the debuts of Jericho and Angle, followed by the Radicals who would go on to make up the new breed for the next few years. I just am looking to see how much you can associate the Smackdown brand with that wind-down that then ended at WM17

Excel
May 3rd, 2013, 5:16 PM
Yes. 100%, yes.

Say what you will about the rest of what they do, but Randy Orton and Kofi Kingston may be two of the most fluid wrestlers to ever exist.
Guys like that may be very proficient technically. They are capable of putting on solid matches. Their matches aren't really ever bad. The problem may not even be with the guys themselves. The problem is that their matches are repetitive and formulaic. Maybe that's booking and producing. Maybe it's that these guys don't feel the need to shake things up and are happy going through the motions. Maybe it's because they are never in compelling angles, not even remotely compelling, and so their matches don't have that extra interest in them that makes up for repetitive and formulaic matches.

If I really cared about an Orton feud I could see myself getting pumped up for his regular shtick. But because I don't care about the match from the get go because there's nothing behind it, I can't get excited about his big moves and spots. Same with Kofi and many others.

There are others though whose work I do enjoy, like Ziggler and Bryan. And it's not necessarily because they are any better technically than Orton and Kofi, I'm not sure what it is, but they don't feel anywhere near as repetitive in the ring, and I'm always interested in seeing them work. Maybe I just care about their characters more and this hides any failings in their matches.

Cewsh
May 3rd, 2013, 5:33 PM
Good lord, Excel. You disappear for months and come back guns blazing. Love it.

Excel
May 3rd, 2013, 5:48 PM
This will probably be my last big run. Going for one last championship before I retire.

but seriously, I will be giving up watching wrestling soon, so I'm gonna spend a little more time here before I do. Air my grievances about it to everyone who cares, and finally put this crazy interest I've had since 1991 to bed.

its a sad time for me.

Cewsh
May 3rd, 2013, 5:51 PM
Why, exactly?

Edit: Actually, you should start a thread about this. I suspect it would spark some great conversation.

Excel
May 3rd, 2013, 5:59 PM
I've thought about doing that, and probably will. When is extreme rules? That's when I expect I'm finished. I was gonna finish after the raw after wrestlemania but the awesome crowd and subsequent fandango mini phenomenon made me feel like a fan again so I decided to give it until the next ppv.

In a nutshell, being a wrestling fan is too much like hard work now, and has been for a long time. I think I'm also hoping that taking an extended break after 22 years of continuous watching might mean that if I ever do try to come back ill enjoy it again.

ill make a thread soon, there is a lot I've got to say about WWE that could lead to some discussion.

Cewsh
May 3rd, 2013, 6:06 PM
:yes:

And Extreme Rules is 2 weeks from Sunday.

chatty
May 3rd, 2013, 6:39 PM
I've thought about doing that, and probably will. When is extreme rules? That's when I expect I'm finished. I was gonna finish after the raw after wrestlemania but the awesome crowd and subsequent fandango mini phenomenon made me feel like a fan again so I decided to give it until the next ppv.

In a nutshell, being a wrestling fan is too much like hard work now, and has been for a long time. I think I'm also hoping that taking an extended break after 22 years of continuous watching might mean that if I ever do try to come back ill enjoy it again.

ill make a thread soon, there is a lot I've got to say about WWE that could lead to some discussion.

I'm on the same wavelength as you mate. I've basically come to terms that I have outgrown the product - the last year has been me mostly hoping it'll change in a direction that'll get me interested again but other than a few mis-carders and a couple of decent angles I think its past that now.

I've cancelled my sports subscription so the week after Extreme Rules will be the last for me, its been a good run, I've been watching since 1989 so they've done a good job keeping a fan but I've grown past it now and most of the product bores me. It's not just wrestling though, theres other stuff I've recently just grown out of, middle age is kicking in I think:lol:

Bill Casey
May 3rd, 2013, 6:56 PM
The attitude era saved WWE...
WCW's cash fest wasn't sustainable...
I can't imagine what the wrestling scape would look like if both WCW and WWE went under...

Vice
May 3rd, 2013, 6:59 PM
http://i.imgur.com/yy7JjHQ.jpg

JP
May 3rd, 2013, 7:43 PM
There's no need to go scaring everyone, Vice! :mad:

virms
May 3rd, 2013, 7:55 PM
Did the attitude era ruin wrestling?

No.

Ringo
May 4th, 2013, 2:58 AM
Being a WWE fan might be hard work in 2013, but a wrestling fan in general? Surely there's something out there that gives you what you're looking for. Even The_Mike found something he liked in SHIMMER.

Vice
May 4th, 2013, 3:44 AM
WHAT ABOUT VICE

WHAT IS THERE FOR VICE

kangus
May 4th, 2013, 3:55 AM
WHAT ABOUT VICE

WHAT IS THERE FOR VICE


http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/c0.5.180.180/s160x160/38014_140793279280286_5505147_a.jpg

the_man_diva
May 4th, 2013, 9:22 AM
Everything I hear about the Attitude Era from those who worked during it (from autobiographies to DVDs) usually centers the "success" of the era stemming from the fact that there were over-arching storylines, longtime planning, and that nearly everyone from the bottom of the card to the top of the main event heap had a storyline or a feud. Even watching show such as HeAT and Shotgun Saturday Night were must-see TV because, again, anything could happen. To me, I think shit went downhill as soon as WCW went out of business.

NOT necessarily because "there was no competition." Simply because, there were just too many people on the roster. There were too many titles during the invasion angle, also ... for a while, the titles were meaningless because there were so many floating around. The days of nearly everyone on the active roster getting a decent amount of TV or at least a sliver of a storyline were over and it suddenly became survival of the fittest (and bear in mind, during the invasion, you had guys out on injury like Triple H and Chris Benoit, and wasn't Eddie Guerrero fired around that time too?) ...

When the Brand Extension was created and they STRICTLY enforced it, I LIKED the product just as much as the Attitude Era. SmackDown! became wrestling-heavy while RAW was more entertainment-heavy. Cruiserweights were given a chance to shine on SmackDown! and the wrestling Divas were taken seriously on RAW. The match quality rose and for a while there, they really did a great job of balancing the rosters and shows out.

Somewhere along the line, they gave in and said, "Yeah, RAW is the flagship show." They began abandoning and dropping storylines entirely. Feuds would just end out of nowhere without explanation. They basically shit on their own product, whether it's having Michael Cole make fun of the Divas or by openly talking about how superior RAW is to SmackDown! ... I would be a whole lot more interested in the product again if they would just go back to strictly enforcing the brand split. You wanna see Sheamus? You better tune into SmackDown! Have The Shield bounce back and forth between the rosters just creating havoc. Consolidate all the titles and have all the champions defend on both shows, make the belts mean something again. There's a lot they can do to fix things, the company just chooses not to ... the sad part is, as I mentioned in my opener, in DVDs and books, those who worked in the Attitude Era KNOW why the era worked and yet no one in management has implemented those same techniques.

The Attitude Era, big crazy bumps, vulgarity, nudity, etc. did NOT ruin wrestling ... WWE basically half-assing their product is what ruins it.

The Rogerer
May 4th, 2013, 9:47 AM
John Cena slitting his wrists because he doesn't have the WWE Title, but wouldn't wipe his arse with the WHC. He should be booked to go after it, and get fought off by some plucky upstarts. He doesn't loose face and remains the WWE Champion, but suffers for overextending his grasp, and the WHC and someone like Ziggler gets some time in the sun.

Tainted Eclipse
May 4th, 2013, 9:56 AM
Being a WWE fan might be hard work in 2013, but a wrestling fan in general? Surely there's something out there that gives you what you're looking for. Even The_Mike found something he liked in SHIMMER.

i cant think of a less rewarding time to be a wrestling fan than this year. maybe last last year.

Cewsh
May 4th, 2013, 1:14 PM
How so? Practically every wrestling promotion on the planet is turning out surprisingly good stuff right now.

Tainted Eclipse
May 4th, 2013, 2:25 PM
wwe's output is pretty much pathetic compared to what it was at this time pre-2010. unless something drastic has changed that im unaware of, the indies are no longer worth watching, ROH is a joke and talented guys elsewhere are scarce compared to much of the 2000s.

japan is a wreck, NOAH isn't putting on the matches it used to, the quirky indies that would at least provide cool matches intersprsed throughout the year like M-Pro and the Battlearts-related groups aren't releasing much at all anymore. NJPW is critically acclaimed, but to such hyperbolic absurdity that people are calling that tanahashi/okada match an all time great; largely njpw put out a couple decent to good matches that are crazily overrated, with maybe one or two legit very good to great matches a year. even there, njpw was more interesting in 2009 because Nakamura was having an awesome run.

cool stuff is happening in Mexico, but i emphasize happening because so little of it makes tape.

it is definitely a very unsatisfying time to be a wrestling fan. any year of the 2000s was clearly better. even the late 90s had neat japanese indies that were rather prolific, and better quality from mexico. and at least in the US the television was exciting. the early-mid 90s, of course almost no one here, myself included, was a fan on the level we are now, but we all know how much great wrestling was going on and to be a 'hardcore' fan it must have been a very exciting time. same for the 80s with great stuff out of the japan and the territories. so really, 2011, 2012 and 2013 have been and are exceptionally bleak years for wrestling and i cant imagine what could happen to turn it around. for several different reasons wrestling just doesn't have the talent stream coming in it used to to mold into stars and great workers.

Cewsh
May 4th, 2013, 2:34 PM
What you are saying to me is that it is an unsatisfying time for YOU to be a wrestling fan. From where I sit, ROH is at it's most interesting point since Gabe torpedoed it, New Japan is the best top to bottom product since WWE in 2001, Shimmer is the best indy promotion since mid 00s Ring of Honor, and the indies in general are stronger than they've been since ROH snapped up all the good talent and sent them straight to WWE. The quality of matches and rivalries in Mexico are obviously up, since you actually hear about them now, as opposed to any other time in the past decade where it was just Mistico and nothing else. NOAH, TNA and All Japan are all in the gutter and WWE isn't as good as it good be at this exact moment, but there is so much more great wrestling in the world then it is even possible to watch all of.

There's a huge difference between what works for you and what works in general. We cancel each other out here. I'm not going to argue wrestling philosophy with you, because we both know that our views are incompatible with one another. But don't sell the wrestling industry as a big pile of meh just because Necro Butcher isn't around enough.

Ringo
May 4th, 2013, 2:37 PM
Yes but you should remember that your tastes aren't exactly in the majority. Most wrestling fans would watch Tanahashi/Okada and enjoy it immensely and Tanahashi is probably the consensus view of "best in the world" right now. I don't necessarily agree but the only people who don't really rate him are people who also don't rate the likes of Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels and regard wrestlers like Edge with disdain. Also Nakamura is still great and his IC title reign has been terrific for a secondary title run. Even if you disagree that the quality of wrestling in New Japan isn't pretty great you should still realise that they're in a better place now than they have been for years with the emergence of a new star in Okada and a stacked roster of legitimate contenders and worthwhile undercard characters.

I don't keep up with many indies personally and am not at all enamoured with the style shift - but there is still acclaimed stuff coming out of Europe, Mexico, ROH, PWG, DGUSA etc.

Other than that you may be right in that there is less great stuff around.

chatty
May 4th, 2013, 2:38 PM
NXT is awesome. Its so much better than the main product I wish they would cut WWE time to give to NXT.

Cewsh
May 4th, 2013, 2:41 PM
I showed Wrestle Kingdom VII to 5 different people. They all watch New Japan regularly on their own now. It's not a coincidence.

Ringo
May 4th, 2013, 2:43 PM
Whilst his take on 2013 New Japan isn't representative, I think it is probably true that there is less variety around now in both Japan and America. In the last decade there has usually been something for (almost) everyone if the WWE or New Japan styles didn't do it for people. Maybe not so anymore.

Cewsh
May 4th, 2013, 2:49 PM
Have you seen much of companies like Shimmer and Chikara recently, though?

WWE, TNA, All Japan, and NOAH all having a down period creatively or business wise does make everything seem worse than it is. But May is always the worst wrestling month of the year.

Tainted Eclipse
May 4th, 2013, 3:29 PM
sure, there is always going to be something a bunch of people will love. 1999 wasn't an aesthetically bad year for wrestling for the leagues of attitude era fans, but i think we can somewhat dispassionately say that it was a poor year for quality world-over.

i get that njpw is very popular with a large contingent of internet fans. to an extent i can see why. i can also see why that style would still be very fresh and interesting to people just getting into japanese wrestling. but even if we take that it's as good as the puro crowd says it is, does it make up for the lack of the output NOAH and ROH providing through much of the 2000s? for the slackened quality of WWE TV wrestling compared to the last decade? at best the love for njpw on the internet at large changes "2013 is the worst year for wrestling" to "2013 is the worst year for wrestling if you dont like new japan."

at least in 2005 if you didn't like what WWE was doing, you had ROH and more diverse japanese scene; ditto for various combinations of that statement for just about any given year of the 2000s. in 2013 if you don't like new japan what do you have? a slackened WWE product and an indie scene that has undergone a stylistic shift such that if you dont like new japan, you probably wont like that either? the iwrg matches that show up once every 3 months?

really, replace 2013 with 2010, 2011 or 2012 and i wont argue. even 2009, though personally i thought WWE's output was off the charts.

for my personal aesthetic sense for wrestling, yeah, the recent years have been particularly bad. probably most of the iwc doesn't feel such an acute drop in quality as compared to 2008 and before. but still i think the last couple years have definitely seen a precipitous drop in quality compared to almost any year that came before them, even IF you like new japan.

AudioDynamite
May 6th, 2013, 12:30 AM
How so? Practically every wrestling promotion on the planet is turning out surprisingly good stuff right now.

Here's the thing though, you have people like me (and generally speaking a huge part of the wrestling fans in America) who watch for the show, while we DO enjoy a good match we prefer the spectacle, I do know great matches but honestly? If they can't cut a good promo or catch my interest I really don't care about their character but will enjoy their match.......WWE is more of a show than anything.

Examples of said people: Antonio Cesaro, Alex Riley, Kofi Kingston, Ted Dibiase Jr, Tyson Kidd, Jack Swagger

And in most cases people like the above mentioned go no place and get replaced with people who can cut promos and make the fans get into them, like The Rock and Austin back in the Attitude Era.

StoneColdWWE316
May 9th, 2013, 10:47 PM
I wouldn't say the Attitude Era ruined Wrestling but it definitely spoiled people into thinking thats what Wrestling is all the time.

turdpower
May 11th, 2013, 4:34 PM
No.

Can we close this now?