Can WWE ever get back to the glory days?

Melion

Ive been a wrestling fan for just about as long as i remember(27 now). Or at least i was until about 3-4 years ago. I know its not just me who stopped watching around that time, ive tried so many times to watch it nowadays and just cant connect with any of the wrestlers anymore. People like Cena etc just annoy me, i cant watch them at all. When i look at the crowds, its full of kids who dont have a clue about proper wrestling.

Ive been watching some old videos today, when was the last time you seen pops like these in the WWE(Bar Booker and Nash returning at the Rumble)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2dYsCT4ISo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdx7g88Bm3g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bkTWIRkOOE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV3h34tUIcQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggYVC6oUrUc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byfACUVzB-k

I know that ive taken some seriously big debuts/returns/titles wins to emphasise my point but those are some of the best examples of crowd reactions i can remember in the WWF/E(especially HHH and Eddie). Is there any chance of WWE ever getting back to the way things were then? Surely there is something they could do.

cuppa

i guess you have just grown out off it.

shinzon

When wrestlings done right you can never out grow it, but unfortunately in this era of Toy Deals and PG shows the it cant be done right, in fact the only interesting thing about Wrestling atm is CM Punk, what a stick man could listen to him for hours.

Its also ironic that powerslam pins the future of the Wrestling Businees on HHH once vince actually retires, im hoping that he will put WWE before his own interests

But on that score its a wait and see game

Shin

Degag

They need to change the PG thing that they have going. It's simply not believable that if guys are supposed to hate eachother, that they are not going to bloody themselves at least occasionally or hit eachother with a chair or kendo stick etc.

The writing and booking needs a drastic change also. There is no continuity anymore. One week they could be pushing someone to the hilt and the next week they are jobbing to Mark Henry (Now, where did i get that from?:rolleyes:)

So many other reasons really - one being Cena, but i think they are the two main ones.

Blatter

They have never replaced Stone Cold and The Rock, two massive losses.

Degag

Another one i just thought of is that new wrestlers these days just don't have gimmicks - at least good ones. They are basically just generic 300 pound musclemen with no charisma. Go back 10 or 20 years etc and everyone had some sort of gimmick. Not all were successful of course, but at least they stood out. Do you think Hulk Hogan would have been as successful if he was just Terry Bollea - a 300 pound bodybuilder? I don't. Would the Undertaker? Not a hope.

parker kent

The change in the crowd is a massive change for me. A good crowd can really, really impact a show. The crowd of kids in there now can never replicate the kind of atmosphere that I want to see at a wrestling show.

I have posted quite a lot about my dislike of John Cena on here and received a lot of flak over it, but to me he is the representation of what has driven people like the OP away from wrestling. I also stopped watching the WWE for about 2 years due to Cena and the general issues I have with the WWE.

TNA filled the gap for a while (before it jumped the shark) and HBK/Undertaker at Wrestlemania rekindled the interest and it grew from there again over the next year with Bret's return and the Mania rematch. CM Punk is another reason I still tune in, I would love to have seen him as a headliner 10 years ago.

But I am still very unhappy with several aspects of the WWE. There is still enough to keep me tuning in (although Sky + does severly tempt me to forward over a lot!) for now anyway.

Edit: The debut of Taz does show that the WWF wasted him.

partyndbs

let the kids enjoy wrestling.....the wwe is gonna grow with them....its about 8 or 9 atm so in 6 years time we should see the more attitude era wrestling then it will peak in about 9/10 yrs and cycle will repeat...

or...whenever cena turns heel will be the moment wwe goes in a new direction altho i dont think hell be around long enough for that to happen but he could return and then it will.

Headshot

I really miss the attitude era. I dont think we'll ever see those days again unfortunately because WWE make a bucket load from PG and the TV broadcasters want it to stay that way.

I also feel they need real competition which TNA isnt exactly doing at this moment in time so therefor WWE has gone stale

I dont enjoy watching WWE alot these days, I just hate the PG crap from that little midget bastard to Cena

joe123

A few times ive tried to get back into watching wrestling and at first I did think id just grown out of it. But watching some of the old stuff again its shocking how much its changed.

That Angle Tazz match was epic. From the crowd, to the quality and even having JR on commentating. The whole thing seemed more realistic and gritty.

It just seemed grittier back then. Now its full of cartoon characters and way to clean cut.

The days of sending each other through tables, covered in blood, you really got immersed in the whole thing.

I watched the Royal rumble and even that seemed rubbish. There really wasnt more than 5 guys in the ring at once, but go back about 10 years and you had 20+ guys all in at once pummeling each other.

When I saw John Cena and a leprechaun eliminate everyone it really summed up what the whole thing has become.

ebbsy

I think a lot of it is what they have done with the PPV's.

Survivor series - where are the elimination matches now ? That used to be my favourite PPV.

Hell in a cell - PG doesnt work. Remember HHH vs Foley ?

Over the limit - needs an ironman match.

There are too many PPV's, they are too close together as well.

Something like Wargames may work.

rossie1977

wwe glory days were the 80s, attitude era was nothing more than a fad period where casual fans thought it was cool to follow wrestling, if you are asking will that fad period from 1999 to 2001 be repeated, probably not

and wtf with picking videos from 2003, wwe today are doing numbers just as good as 2003, in fact if wrestlemania27 does a number equivalent to mania19 then the death of wwe will be exclaimed across the rooftops

D.Q

99-2003 was the glory days for the wwe FAN, I'm not talking about the guys who crunch the numbers. They had probably the best main event scene they will ever have, 5 or 6 very credible challengers, all of whom could concievably win the belt.

Thats what they were fighting for then, the belt. The belt actually seemed to mean something. Nowadays with the revolving door of one month feuds and title changes, it doesnt mean anything. I would say it is as important as the IC title back in the day, if even.

Thats not to mention the midcard with the likes of Y2J, angle, eddie, benoit, and the tag division. All in all, a great product. Top to bottom.

rossie1977

D.Q wrote: »

99-2003 was the glory days for the wwe FAN, I'm not talking about the guys who crunch the numbers. They had probably the best main event scene they will ever have, 5 or 6 very credible challengers, all of whom could concievably win the belt.

Thats what they were fighting for then, the belt. The belt actually seemed to mean something. Nowadays with the revolving door of one month feuds and title changes

wait just a second there now, the wwf title belt changed hands 19 times between the november 1998 and june 2000 (18 months or so), the longest reign during that period was hhhs 118 days, vince mcmahon was champion during that period :rolleyes: kane had a 1 day reign leading up to that period, the wwe title belt has changed hands 20 times since 2006 to the present day........ the problem with short feuds and short title reigns STARTED during the attitude era, its ironic that most fans see these short reigns as something to complain about when its the era they oh so much love that started the whole ball rolling in that respect

creative made the top guys look more credible, the top guys were booked far stronger than the top guys are in wwe today (with the exception of cena, orton, hhh) PLUS you had all the top guys going for one belt, unlike today where two world titles has diluted the mainevent picture

wwe did have a terrific undercard with jericho, mystero, benoit et al, thanks to raiding wcw but that was the back-end of the era, guys like benoit, eddie didn't start getting proper pushes till late 2001-02, wwe have a very good undercard today, still waiting for proper pushes for the likes of danielson, swagger, kofi and a few others

D.Q

I get what your saying. But there was no way a wwf title match would be below other stuff on the show. At the moment, the miz(theoretically THE best guy in the buisness) is basically in the midcard with Jerry Lawlor, while Cena and Orton are of far more importance.

jaykhunter

No. WWE will never get back to the glory days of Hulkamania or the Attitude Era.

What makes Hulkamania unique :
1) It was the first big explosion of popularity of wrestling
2) It poached the best talent from every territory (i.e. main eventers were WWF's midcard) so the roster was completely stacked. i.e. unparalleled talent on the roster;
3) Booking/The roster was generally used to the best of their ability.
4) Competition - WWF was firing on all cylinders to become #1 and run everyone else out of business -- it had legit competition and needed to see them off

What makes Attitude Era unique :
1) Huge competition from WCW, WWF was getting put out of business -- so they needed to provide excellent TV or die
2) Confluence again of FRESH, AMAZING talent - Austin, Rock, Foley, HHH, Taker etc
3) Breaking kayfabe was fresh
4) Hardcore wrestling was innovative
5) New types of gimmick matches & more adult storylines
6) Wrestlers generally booked to their strengths and creative firing on all cylinders
7) Able to poach great talent from WCW & ECW

Today
1) No competition from a legitimate rival
2) No amazingly talented wrestlers
3) Very few fresh feuds
4) Too much TV time to fill/PPVs
5) High concentration of inexperienced talent, oweing to not being able to poach great talent/main-eventers from competition; they've only worked in the WWE (i.e. not Japan, Mexico etc for years)
6) Awful booking that means titles and stipulations mean nothing
7) Feuds never really end, they just fizzle out
8) Pretty much every stipulation, gimmick match and gimmick has been done before; generally better as well.
eg Dolph Ziggler is the poor man's Mr. Perfect in every way you can rate a wrestler.

Mr Teeny

While I can see where people are coming from, I don’t think the whole PG thing is the reason for the quality of WWE dropping. You don’t have to have pools of blood to make a moment memorable. Just look at Hogan slamming Andre at Wrestlemania.

For me it’s a culmination of far too many PPVs and poor booking. A feud is considered long term now if it goes on for longer than a few weeks. We have no time to become emotionally involved anymore. They are speeding through feuds so they can have something new to help sell the next PPV. Remember when they had just the big 4 PPVs? Feuds actually meant something then. Months, even years, would be spent building up a story between two guys. I feel lucky that I grew up when wrestling was like that. Coming into school the day after a big event and it was the only thing we would speak about for hours.

You don’t need blood or chair shots to make the show entertaining and you certainly don’t need them to make a feud memorable. My favourite feud of all time was Bret V Owen. While they had their fair share of non-pg segments, they are not what made the feud so memorable. The build throughout that feud was amazing, it’s something WWE don’t push properly any more.

parker kent

rossie1977 wrote: »

wwe glory days were the 80s, attitude era was nothing more than a fad period where casual fans thought it was cool to follow wrestling, if you are asking will that fad period from 1999 to 2001 be repeated, probably not

and wtf with picking videos from 2003, wwe today are doing numbers just as good as 2003, in fact if wrestlemania27 does a number equivalent to mania19 then the death of wwe will be exclaimed across the rooftops

Watch the 1980s stuff again in the WWF, it was nearly always terrible. Most of the audience were kids and parents and they were watching the most shockingly awful matches between Hogan, Andre etc. Great workers were there such as Macho Man, Million Dollar Man etc but they were never the focus of the product. Most matches were squash matches between one star and a jobber. Hogan was kept as a special attraction as he was too busy roiding up and trying to be a Hollywood star. Then at the PPVs, there would often be far, far too many matches and few got anywhere near enough time to become in any way decent. For every Macho Man/Steamboat classic, there were 20 dismal disasters. The real hardcore fans in the 19802 were watching Ric Flair, Terry Funk, The Freebirds etc.

How exactly do you differentiate the casual fans who thought it was cool to follow the WWF in the 1980s and the same fans from 1998-2002? How exactly were people tuning into Mania to watch Mr T anything other than casual fans? Ditto the Rock and Wrestling Connection through MTV.

The main difference between the two booms is that one was kid-oriented and the other was aimed at 15-30 year olds. There were far better matches in the Attitude era boom. You could say that the Attitude era boom was aimed at the people who watched wrestling in the 1980s as kids. WCW, the NWO and Hogan turning heel played a massive part in bringing that audience back to wrestling and Vince used that to create bigger and better stars such as Stone Cold and The Rock.

That being said, there were also some terrible moments in the Attitude era. The WWF title was severely damaged due to the booking as is reference above. There were also some terrible gimmicks and good taste was regularly thrown out the window (Mae Young at the Rumble etc).

Maybe in 10 years time, the 7 year olds of today will have something better to watch when Cena does a Hogan. I'm holding out on Powerslam's theory and that HHH will help improve things when he gets the big job. Or else Steph suddenly finds Paul Heyman irresistible :pac:

sliotor

jaykhunter wrote: »

No. WWE will never get back to the glory days of Hulkamania or the Attitude Era.

What makes Hulkamania unique :
1) It was the first big explosion of popularity of wrestling
2) It poached the best talent from every territory (i.e. main eventers were WWF's midcard) so the roster was completely stacked. i.e. unparalleled talent on the roster;
3) Booking/The roster was generally used to the best of their ability.
4) Competition - WWF was firing on all cylinders to become #1 and run everyone else out of business -- it had legit competition and needed to see them off

What makes Attitude Era unique :
1) Huge competition from WCW, WWF was getting put out of business -- so they needed to provide excellent TV or die
2) Confluence again of FRESH, AMAZING talent - Austin, Rock, Foley, HHH, Taker etc
3) Breaking kayfabe was fresh
4) Hardcore wrestling was innovative
5) New types of gimmick matches & more adult storylines
6) Wrestlers generally booked to their strengths and creative firing on all cylinders
7) Able to poach great talent from WCW & ECW

Today
1) No competition from a legitimate rival
2) No amazingly talented wrestlers
3) Very few fresh feuds
4) Too much TV time to fill/PPVs
5) High concentration of inexperienced talent, oweing to not being able to poach great talent/main-eventers from competition; they've only worked in the WWE (i.e. not Japan, Mexico etc for years)
6) Awful booking that means titles and stipulations mean nothing
7) Feuds never really end, they just fizzle out
8) Pretty much every stipulation, gimmick match and gimmick has been done before; generally better as well.
eg Dolph Ziggler is the poor man's Mr. Perfect in every way you can rate a wrestler.

I agree with most of the comments you made there, and I grew up in the attitude era and the product that is there does not compare especially because it is aimed at kids and cena promo's do my head in. I actually agree with one of the points that cole made on raw he said he is bored of cena, he comes out and does the same thing every week.

I think it is too early to call ziggler a poor man’s mr.perfect, Perfect was absolute class. You have to give the kid time to develop, I think he has come on a lot over the years and he has the capability to put on a great match although he has to get a new finisher, the zig zag is terrible.

rossie1977

parker kent wrote: »

Watch the 1980s stuff again in the WWF, it was nearly always terrible.

yeah alot of the matches were not great but casual wrestling fans don't care about match quality, the quality of matches today is quite high but not one fan cares about that. storylines, gimmicks and promos are ALL that matters in wwe/f to the casual fan and in terms of those 3 the 80s killed the attitude era for me, i can go back and put on pipers pit or watch the buildup to the hogan/andre, hogan/warrior, hogan/savage feuds even now and be entertained, outside watching austins old stuff circa 1998-99 and the rocks jokes alot of the attitude era stuff is not good quality tv for the most part, for me 1997 was a far better year than anything that followed but nobody watched wwe in 1997, they were more interested in watching hogan,nash and hall spraypainting the back of some jobber

jaykhunter

rossie1977 wrote: »

wait just a second there now, the wwf title belt changed hands 19 times between the november 1998 and june 2000 (18 months or so), the longest reign during that period was hhhs 118 days, vince mcmahon was champion during that period :rolleyes: kane had a 1 day reign leading up to that period, the wwe title belt has changed hands 20 times since 2006 to the present day........

Hang on, you conveniently left out the WORLD title as well! That's a huge oversight. Yes it was mental during the Attitude Era; but even when there were 2 main shows there was one world title; so there was always one focus to the shows. Now we have two half-assed "i'm the champion of Mondays" and "I'm the champion of Tuesday tapings" titles. There's been THIRTY EIGHT new champions crowned since 2008!...which includes ~10 months title reigns between Taker and Kane; so you can imagine how often they happened. Titles meaning nothing is not from the Attitude Era, it's from today's split brands and booking them into the toilet.

Agreed with the rest of the points you mentioned but I don't see how the undercard of today has a patch on the undercard of the Attitude Era. I can't see how Danielson, Swagger, Kofi etc can match up to Jericho, Mysterio, Benoit etc. Most if not all of the roster in the attitude era was somewhat over, unlike most of the roster of today.

To summarise my last post, the main reasons why WWE won't go back to the glory days is because :
1) No competition - complacency
2) WWE is still popular enough - RAW still gets around or over 4 million viewers in the US and they still make ~30 million profit per year. Not until they face actual lean years (hovering over the break-even area) will they get their rear in gear.
3) Uninteresting, generic feuds/Self-sabotaging booking with no positives
4) Lack of excellent, fresh talent.

jaykhunter

sliotor wrote: »

I think it is too early to call ziggler a poor man’s mr.perfect, Perfect was absolute class. You have to give the kid time to develop, I think he has come on a lot over the years and he has the capability to put on a great match although he has to get a new finisher, the zig zag is terrible.

That's the thing though, i like Ziggler. But in his case as with a lot of others, he's been on TV for a few years, and we're seeing him at the start of his career, whilst Mr Perfect was already a seasoned pro when we first saw him in the WWF. If Ziggler spent the first ten years of his career in Japan, Mexico, WCW then finally WWF, I might not be making the comparison!

on a side note, I was shocked that Cole took shots at Cena. Obviously Vince told him to say that; but surely it's VINCE's fault that Cena's so stale....

Excellent point rossie about match quality. You don't need excellent mat-wrestling when you've got mega stars cutting amazing promos in mark-out storylines. Although we did have both when we got the influx of WCW stars (Eddie, Benoit, Jericho etc) combined with the great tag division and Rock/Tripper/Foley doing it at the top of the card The roster was so stacked that Austin had a hard time re-interjecting himself when he came back late 2000; he was not even gone a year!!

parker kent

rossie1977 wrote: »

yeah alot of the matches were not great but casual wrestling fans don't care about match quality, the quality of matches today is quite high but not one fan cares about that. storylines, gimmicks and promos are ALL that matters in wwe/f to the casual fan and in terms of those 3 the 80s killed the attitude era for me, i can go back and put on pipers pit or watch the buildup to the hogan/andre, hogan/warrior, hogan/savage feuds even now and be entertained, outside watching austins old stuff circa 1998-99 and the rocks jokes alot of the attitude era stuff is not good quality tv for the most part, for me 1997 was a far better year than anything that followed but nobody watched wwe in 1997, they were more interested in watching hogan,nash and hall spraypainting the back of some jobber

Yes some jobber like Randy Savage, Ric Flair...not exactly jobbers. WCW actually was magnificently booked for a short period of time. The NWO was the big gimmick, but if you didn't like them you could watch Goldberg. If you didn't like them you could watch a fantastic cruiserweight division with some of the greatest matches in American wrestling history. If you didn't like that there was a vibrant mid card scene with Benoit, Raven etc.

The WWF was fantastic in 1997 and that is what led to the attitude era boom. WCW and the WWF pushed each other to the maximum. That was THE year in wrestling in my view. WWF started the Attitude promos in 1997. It is also sadly, the year WCW began to decline (its peak was between the Hogan heel turn and the Goldberg title victory). It is very much a lie to say nobody was watching the WWF. Also, if you combine viewers from Raw and Nitro, it trounces the 1980s. Never before were so many people watching wrestling every single week.

There are many valid arguments being made as to why the product has declined. The lack of competition is a major issue. As is the collapse of the territories and wrestlers learning their craft over many years in smaller promotions as well as trips to Japan, Mexico etc. CM Punk and Brian Danielson stand out on WWE TV at the minute because they are the modern rarity whose career path harks back to the past. They honed their act over many years and what we see is the end product.

Guys like Ziggler or Morrison have vast potential. There are many more like them in wrestling at the minute. I look at Shelton Benjamin as an example of wasted potential due to the current culture in wrestling. He did not get the solid grounding that guys like Mr. Perfect, Million Dollar Man etc received.

So my views on how things could be improved and lead to a much improved product would be:

Vince needs to step aside. I don't think he has enough left in him to face the challenge. He is returning to the same well all the time. New ideas are needed. Great change needs to start at the top.

After Vince goes, change the culture in creative and hire people who understand wrestling. Vince is almost ashamed of the word wrestling. Failed TV writers will always produce crap, get guys who know what they are at. There are plenty of people in wrestling who understand how to create great angles. In other words, it needs proper long term booking. No more illogical moves. No more dropping angles for no reason. Plan them out over several months and have an idea what the outcome will be. Don't have a feud like the Hart Dynasty had which ended with a 3 minute match on Raw. That was a joke and a proper booker would not have allowed something so idiotic to happen. They need to create new stars, get behind them and stay behind them. Kofi Kingston could be a star now if they had booked him properly in his feud with Orton and in the aftermath. Look at how WCW built Goldberg or how the WWF built Lesnar.

Change the developmental scene. FCW is not enough. Get better people involved at that stage. Shawn Michaels proved with Danielson, Spanky and others that good training makes a difference. HHH would do well to get HBK involved. Get Cornette back involved and let him run it how he wants to. His last time in the developmentals was subject to constant interference. Let them practice in the ring and work on gimmicks. That is the place to iron out the flaws in gimmicks.

Arrange a deal with New Japan and get the top prospects to spend 6 months to a year in Japan. It has been proven over time that this pays dividends. Umaga came back from Japan a far better wrestler. Learning different styles is important.

Use the above changes and utilise wrestlers abilities. Every match should not be the punch-kick approach favoured by muscle bound headliners. Follow the WCW approach and allow different wrestlers to wrestle with different styles. Some people will say that casual fans will not care. So since they don't care one way or another, you might as well have decent in-ring action for the hardcore fans. After all, they are the people who will stay long term and are the real cash cow when it comes to regular PPV buys. Give different fans, different things to enjoy. Like in my example above, if you didn't like the NWO you had the cruiserweights or Goldberg.

Sort out PPVs. There are far too many. 12 a year is more than enough. Hell in a Cell and its ilk should be scrapped. Save that gimmick for ending major feuds. Not all gimmick PPVs are bad as Elimination Chamber has proved. It shows that a gimmick can lead to good matches and it is used well (i.e. only twice on the night, not the TLC overload we saw in December). Bring back the King of the Ring PPV and give it the respect it deserved. A one night tournament can be a great success if the right stories are told throughout the night. Raid the WCW back catalogue and bring back their biggest PPV names like Wargames, Starrcade etc.

PG, the elephant in the room. I don't subscribe to the idea that this is the source of all evil. WCW proved success can come with a PG rating. Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart had a great feud in 1997 with a PG rating. So the bigger issue is sorting out the writing and the talent. I would try and allow blood to occur occasionally throughout the year. Not in the tawdry TNA, CZW style abuse of blading. Just some well used blood in bigger matches. The same way that the bigger matches should have a more realistic feel. It is just better that way. In other words, no more SuperCena moments like we saw at Summerslam or in the majority of his matches after 2007. If Cena were portrayed as a human with genuine weaknesses, it would be much, much better. It would also fit the PG world too.

parker kent

jaykhunter wrote: »

8) Pretty much every stipulation, gimmick match and gimmick has been done before; generally better as well.
eg Dolph Ziggler is the poor man's Mr. Perfect in every way you can rate a wrestler.

That is just the wrong attitude to have. Good writers can create new ideas, recycle old ideas in a fresh way or create simple yet timeless feuds. The issue is bad writing, not that it has all been written already.

Cianan2

rossie1977 wrote: »

outside watching austins old stuff circa 1998-99 and the rocks jokes alot of the attitude era stuff is not good quality tv for the most part

You clearly don't remember much Steve Blackman, he WAS the attitude era!

ricero

i dont think it will ever return to the glory days of the attitude area. what really stuck out for me back then is you cared about every storyline involving a wwe title such as the intercontinental, European,hardcore heck even the womens title. and the upper mid card talent was brilliant and there matches nearly as good as the main events sometimes even better. also there was a great tag team division back in them days and what they have done to the tag team division in modern wwe is an utter disgrace and sham.

Ridley

jaykhunter wrote: »

No. WWE will never get back to the glory days of Hulkamania or the Attitude Era.

What makes Hulkamania unique :
...

What makes Attitude Era unique :
...

Today
...

Problem with your listing is that you focus on the positives of the first two eras and the negatives of today.

I'd argue that the actual wrestling itself is better now and more varied than it ever was in the Hogan/Austin days.

What I miss about the Attitude Era is that everyone on the roster had a role:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I-iUL2IBn4

Kinda funny how the examples are mostly post-2001 when the pops were bigger before that. Not accusing you of it, JK but PG is a scapegoat for today's flaws. I think it's just mishandled most of the time. Ted DiBiase was capable of telling Maryse he was going to screw her without directly mentioning sex. That's PG as much as John Cena's "poopy", Punk the cultist and hero Orton practically being Dexter Morgan with rage issues.

Sheamus probably wouldn't have been able to embrace Celtic mythology back then.

jaykhunter

I made a definite point that in my posts the acronym "PG" never appears in it; because it's not the problem! (and the fact that Hulkamania was PG and awesome kills the PG argument!)

Agreed Parker, WWE isn't doing the best it can with what it's got; an old storyline done well can be great (see Nexus June-November) but in general we still get crap storylines (see Edge/Kane) and go-nowhere unproductive feuds (look at how Miz is being booked) but even if WWE were having fantastic storylines and making the best of their talent we still wouldn't be back to the heyday of the Attitude Era/Hulkamania. You can't book the talent that's not there. There is no Rock/Austin/Foley etc.

I don't think anyone can argue that today's general standard of match quality is higher than it's ever been in WWE (apart from maybe the undercard of 2000-2001) but it's no substitute for great characters and storylines. If I wanted atheticism and a legit sporting contest I'd watch UFC; I watch wrestling for storylines, characters etc. As much as I treasure in-ring talent I'd trade all the Danielsons in the world for a few people who can cut Foley/Rock-level promos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNCuzmiyafE

I'm afraid Sheamus/Miz etc can't hit that level of awesome

jaykhunter wrote: »

To summarise my last post, the main reasons why WWE won't go back to the glory days is because :
1) No competition - complacency
2) WWE is still popular enough - RAW still gets around or over 4 million viewers in the US and they still make ~30 million profit per year. Not until they face actual lean years (hovering over the break-even area) will they get their rear in gear.
3) Uninteresting, generic feuds/Self-sabotaging booking with no positives
4) Not many excellent, fresh talent.

Well I think we can all agree on these reasons but my opinion or not the # of people watching/general slope of TV viewers/PPV buys says it all.

Ridley

jaykhunter wrote: »

I made a definite point that in my posts the acronym "PG" never appears in it; because it's not the problem! (and the fact that Hulkamania was PG and awesome kills the PG argument!)

Ridley wrote: »

Not accusing you of it, JK but PG is a scapegoat for today's flaws.

Bit unfair to hold anyone to Foley's standards of promo. One of the few "lol" moments I've had watching WWE was the episode of Heat (the Kurt Angle chicken suit episode I think) when Commissioner Foley said "Isn't that right, Winnie?!" to the Pooh on his shirt. Especially when he wasn't being scripted as much.

Now there's Punk and... Punk. Miz has had a good promo moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb_jEMFoi_k

I remember Orton did something similar when he was IC champ. Orton can't improvise though. Last time I remember wrestlers giving semi-honesty was Christian and Matt Hardy's MitB promo which didn't really lead to anything.

jaykhunter

Cool; i'm quick on the trigger to point out that PG isn't the problem since so many ill-informed fans (not on this site!) point the finger at PG. Just look at TNA, who aren't PG. Their show isn't made any better no matter how many times Velvet says b1tch!

There's definitely a drop in quality from the top eras to today; and to say it's unfair to compare pretty much admits that today's product is inferior. Although wow, we were so lucky to have been watching when guys like Foley were cutting promos.

Hulkamania : Hulk, Warrior, Macho, Roberts, Million Dollar Man, Dusty, Piper etc...
Attitude : Austin, Rock, Foley, Triple H, Jericho, Vince etc....
Today : Punk, Miz....em...Cena....Edge...

Comparing awesomeness of the Attitude Era to today's product is like comparing
to

Machismo Fan

The overall standard of wrestling today is vastly superior to the attitude era - much less shortcuts and in much larger quantities. Past eras are over romanticised and in five years time people will say that 'it's not the same' or 'it's not as good' about wrestling then in comparison to what we have now.