when will wrestling have its next golden era?

partyndbs

next 5 years? a decade? 50 yrs from now? never again?

imo i think it depends on tna

MitchKoobski

Golden Era according to who?

Anyone aged 20 - 30 will say 1995 - 2004 was.
Anyone aged 35+ will say Hogan, Savage etc.

jaykhunter

It's next golden era mitch!

This Q was debated in the thread "can wwe ever get back to it's glory days".

Honestly, I don't think WWE will ever have
1) a confluence of amazing talent
2) serious money woes and
3) competition kicking their ass

like it had in ~1997 that resulted in WWF knuckling down and deliver the best product possible. It's one thing to have Austin, Rock, Tripper, Foley, Taker, Kane and then also Angle, Benoit, Eddie, Jericho, Hardyz, Dudleyz, E&C etc on the roster but everyone was used extremely well....they went from losing money to printing money. Their backs were against a wall and from that they could get anyone over. Bloody the Roadie Jesse James and Rockabilly were crazy over - something that can only happen when there's a dire need for it to happen.

You can draw a line in WWE, as soon as they purchased WCW (and ECW) the company started to decline -- starting with turning Austin heel @ X7, with Rock going and Tripper heel too. Comedy crap in the main event with Austin and Angle.....botched inVasion angle...... seeing TNA fall flat on it's face time and time again, they'll never be competition, and WWE will just slowly decline over time.

That said, at least their product is becoming a lot fresher with trying to push a lot of different guys. But with 6 hours of first run TV (not counting superstars) we can't have a special product, anything to catch fire will be beaten into the ground. WWE are still terrified of upsetting the status quo......5 months into the reign and Morrison's the only guy to put Miz over clean... :mad:

So the answer is never. WWE make too much profit and do well "enough" ratings wise with too much TV to fill and PPVs to whore and are too scared to rock the boat that they'll never desperately need to take risks and make new stars in that fashion again.

So no, there will never be another Golden era... but it'll still be enjoyable enough to watch

Rob113

Maybe I'm getting old (I'm only 30 ffs) but for me the golden era was hulk hogan, ultimate warrior, Yokozuna, early undertaker, superfly jimmy snuka, mr perfect, ravishing rick rude, legion of doom, hacksaw Jim duggan, rowdy roddy piper, Jake the snake, macho man randy savage, jim the anvil neidhart, Brutus the beefcake, bret hart, ted money debiasi etc etc etc. I know there's loads more I'm leaving out

the groutch

as long as WWE are are PG, and TNA don't provide serious opposition to them, there will be no return to a golden age

jaykhunter

"when will wrestling have its next golden era?"

Lads just fyi he asked if another golden period will come around again, not when the golden period was!

MitchKoobski

jaykhunter wrote: »

Lads just fyi he asked if another golden period will come around again, not when the golden period was!

Yeah but my point is, ANY era can be a golden era depending on who you ask. 10 year old kid will tell you we're already in the new golden era.

You can't guess when the next one comes around because that's like predicting the future out of nothing.

drayme

the groutch wrote: »

as long as WWE are are PG, and TNA don't provide serious opposition to them, there will be no return to a golden age

I love quotes like these people said this in the 40's, 70's and the 90's.

All that needs to happen is one wrestler to connect with audience that is pretty much it. Hence why WWE has been tripping over themselves to find the next Rock.

Cactus Colm

I think that TNA is in a better position to be the birthplace of the next golden era. They have access to talent that WWE seems to be reluctant to take on. There seems to be more freedom in wrestlers cutting their own promo's, and there is a desire to succeed and challenge. They are willing to take risks (such as the move to monday nights). It looks like they are in a better position for a piece of magic to happen, and to be able to capitalise on it.

drayme

Cactus Colm wrote: »

I think that TNA is in a better position to be the birthplace of the next golden era. They have access to talent that WWE seems to be reluctant to take on. There seems to be more freedom in wrestlers cutting their own promo's, and there is a desire to succeed and challenge. They are willing to take risks (such as the move to monday nights). It looks like they are in a better position for a piece of magic to happen, and to be able to capitalise on it.

Good luck with that.

Cherry_Cola

Cactus Colm wrote: »

I think that TNA is in a better position to be the birthplace of the next golden era. They have access to talent that WWE seems to be reluctant to take on. There seems to be more freedom in wrestlers cutting their own promo's, and there is a desire to succeed and challenge. They are willing to take risks (such as the move to monday nights). It looks like they are in a better position for a piece of magic to happen, and to be able to capitalise on it.

The fact that TNA even refer to them as wrestlers and to themselves as a wrestling show is very much a step in the right direction.

krudler

Cactus Colm wrote: »

I think that TNA is in a better position to be the birthplace of the next golden era. They have access to talent that WWE seems to be reluctant to take on. There seems to be more freedom in wrestlers cutting their own promo's, and there is a desire to succeed and challenge. They are willing to take risks (such as the move to monday nights). It looks like they are in a better position for a piece of magic to happen, and to be able to capitalise on it.

If only they stoppd pushing washed up WWE stars over their homegrown talent then they'd be on to something, it was great to watch back in 2006 when AJ, Daniels and Samoa Joe were tearing the house down, then in came all the ex WWE stars and it fell apart and has ridiculous booking, wasnt there a show recently where there was barely 10 mins of wrestling on a 90 minute show minus commercials? thats ludicrous.

Get rid of Russo, sack half the washed up veterans and start pushing the young talent to the heavens and then it'll become a contender and an alternative, until then itll only be seen as where the geriatrics go to run out the remaining years they have left.

Oh,and find someone who knows something about grapic design to do their PPV posters, they're just abysmal.

Gerard.C

Cherry_Cola wrote: »

The fact that TNA even refer to them as wrestlers and to themselves as a wrestling show is very much a step in the right direction.

There's 100 steps in the wrong direction to go with that, to be fair.

WWE is very enjoyable at the minute, I wouldnt be worrying too much about "another atttude era" or whatever else a minority of people seem to want. It is what it is like, enjoy it. Times change. So does wrestling. I cant understand how people who watch wrestlign every week can go on about things like the next golden era, or whatever spin is put on it.

Gerard.C

krudler wrote: »

If only they stoppd pushing washed up WWE stars over their homegrown talent then they'd be on to something, it was great to watch back in 2006 when AJ, Daniels and Samoa Joe were tearing the house down, then in came all the ex WWE stars and it fell apart and has ridiculous booking, wasnt there a show recently where there was barely 10 mins of wrestling on a 90 minute show minus commercials? thats ludicrous.

Get rid of Russo, sack half the washed up veterans and start pushing the young talent to the heavens and then it'll become a contender and an alternative, until then itll only be seen as where the geriatrics go to run out the remaining years they have left.

This is true, and L.A.X were unbelieveable at that time too. Then Sting arrived. Then Booker. Then Angle. Then Steiner. Then Hall and Nash, etc... How they could make such a mess out of that much potential is ridiculous.

Kensworld

Vinces decision to ban the term wrestler doesn't bode well for a new golden era. They've even taking wrestling out of the company's name. It's now just WWE not World Wrestling Entertainment

jaykhunter

MitchKoobski wrote: »

Yeah but my point is, ANY era can be a golden era depending on who you ask. 10 year old kid will tell you we're already in the new golden era.

You can't guess when the next one comes around because that's like predicting the future out of nothing.

ah, ha ok, one of my mates thinks the golden era of wrestling was 1994-1994, that one night @ WMX. :pac:

Well it's just a discussion topic really. But it also shows who's an optimist and who's a cynical bastard like me lol

partyndbs

wwe is anything but enjoyable at the moment. its so bad

jaykhunter

Kensworld wrote: »

Vinces decision to ban the term wrestler doesn't bode well for a new golden era. They've even taking wrestling out of the company's name. It's now just WWE not World Wrestling Entertainment

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
- Not if you call 'em stench blossoms. Or crap weeds.
I'd sure hate to get a dozen crap weeds for Valentine's Day. I'd rather have candy.
- Not if they were called scum drops!

the groutch

jaykhunter wrote: »

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
- Not if you call 'em stench blossoms. Or crap weeds.
I'd sure hate to get a dozen crap weeds for Valentine's Day. I'd rather have candy.
- Not if they were called scum drops!

so which is Cena? the stench blossoms, the crap weeds, or the scum drops?

I am not sure if you will ever see one again. Unless another company steps in . WWE are going down the entertainment root. Vince was quoted in the past saying , if he can only get the ring out of wrestling and make movies.

parker kent

Gerard.C wrote: »

There's 100 steps in the wrong direction to go with that, to be fair.

WWE is very enjoyable at the minute, I wouldnt be worrying too much about "another atttude era" or whatever else a minority of people seem to want. It is what it is like, enjoy it. Times change. So does wrestling. I cant understand how people who watch wrestlign every week can go on about things like the next golden era, or whatever spin is put on it.

Surely you can like it but still wish for another white-hot era? I don't think anybody wants the attitude era version 2, people are just asking if there'll be another era to match the quality and cultural impact of previous eras. If you like wrestling you tend to always like it, but there have been eras that most seasoned wrestling observers would mark out as exceptional.

Wrestling goes through peaks and troughs all the time. No reason to suggest that there may not be another in future. Every peak era has been the result of a unique set of changes that kicked off a drive in creativity, talent and popularity. Vince buying up the territories was one such change. The Monday Night Wars was another driver for change. There may be another some stage in the future. As to what they may be here are my guesses:

-Vince retiring and HHH/Steph making changes and a new direction. To most wrestling equals the WWE so this would be a unique chance for major change.

-Somebody buying TNA and recreating the WCW-WWF war. If somebody like Heyman were in charge and producing a logical, viable alternative it may cause the WWE to dramatically change. For a time I thought TNA were heading in that direction already. But then they started pushing anybody who even farted near a WWE ring instead of Joe, Daniels, AJ etc.

drayme

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not sure if you will ever see one again. Unless another company steps in . WWE are going down the entertainment root. Vince was quoted in the past saying , if he can only get the ring out of wrestling and make movies.

You realise that the wrestling boom of the 1980s was due to WWE going down the "entertainment root" right?

Bounty Hunter

parker kent wrote: »

Surely you can like it but still wish for another white-hot era? I don't think anybody wants the attitude era version 2, people are just asking if there'll be another era to match the quality and cultural impact of previous eras. If you like wrestling you tend to always like it, but there have been eras that most seasoned wrestling observers would mark out as exceptional.

Wrestling goes through peaks and troughs all the time

First off I agree fully, but this is a good jumping off point. If a trough as you put it goes on long enough it should eventually cause the image of the product and thus the marketability of the WWE brand to fall. This should potentially in turn force the writers etc to up there game in the same way competition should spike their creativity. I wonder how long a trough would have to go on to maybe have that effect

DM_7

krudler wrote: »

If only they stoppd pushing washed up WWE stars over their homegrown talent then they'd be on to something, it was great to watch back in 2006 when AJ, Daniels and Samoa Joe were tearing the house down, then in came all the ex WWE stars and it fell apart and has ridiculous booking, wasnt there a show recently where there was barely 10 mins of wrestling on a 90 minute show minus commercials? thats ludicrous.

Get rid of Russo, sack half the washed up veterans and start pushing the young talent to the heavens and then it'll become a contender and an alternative, until then itll only be seen as where the geriatrics go to run out the remaining years they have left.

Oh,and find someone who knows something about grapic design to do their PPV posters, they're just abysmal.

The above had an appeal to some, the type of people who want to see great wrestling matches alone. But the mass appeal comes when peoples personalities catch peoples imagination and they can use that to create great drama in and out of the ring. The three guys above never had mass appeal and never will.

Also what people want, TNA ditching WWE guys will never work while they are universal studios, they need to have appeal of well known personalities to keep interest in the show.

Rjd2

Masters and Baretta on Smackdown.

Ryder on Raw.


Hawkins and Primo on Superstars.


What more do you want?

Machismo Fan

I know the wrestling business might not be booming but that's most certainly not to say it isn't a really great time to be a wrestling fan. There's more quality wrestling out there than you can shake a stick at, plus with the internet it's not very difficult to access mountains of wrestling from the past 'Golden era's'. If people aren't able to get their fix of top notch wrestling one way or another then they're not trying hard enough. I don't know when wrestling will be truly hot again (and I agree that it depends very much on if/when TNA get their act together) but through WWE, TNA, ROH, DGUSA, PWG, Japan or just watching old stuff you haven't seen there's just so much choice at the moment.

Cherry_Cola

Machismo Fan wrote: »

I know the wrestling business might not be booming but that's most certainly not to say it isn't a really great time to be a wrestling fan. There's more quality wrestling out there than you can shake a stick at, plus with the internet it's not very difficult to access mountains of wrestling from the past 'Golden era's'. If people aren't able to get their fix of top notch wrestling one way or another then they're not trying hard enough. I don't know when wrestling will be truly hot again (and I agree that it depends very much on if/when TNA get their act together) but through WWE, TNA, ROH, DGUSA, PWG, Japan or just watching old stuff you haven't seen there's just so much choice at the moment.

I completely agree. I've been really getting into some ROH in the last while having only had a passing interest in it before.

Over the last week I've picked up every episode of WCW Nitro and hope to watch it over the next few weeks and experience the golden era of the NWO and the cruiserweight division, seeing as I missed out on it last time (only watched from 2000 so my impressions of it certainly weren't the best :pac:).

As Machismo said, there is some great quality wrestling out there, it may not be as big league as the WWE, but it is certainly worth giving it a shot if you haven't already.

drayme

Cherry_Cola wrote: »

Over the last week I've picked up every episode of WCW Nitro and hope to watch it over the next few weeks

Good luck getting through some of those three hour shows. You'll never want to hear the NWO again.

Charisteas

Cherry_Cola wrote: »

Over the last week I've picked up every episode of WCW Nitro and hope to watch it over the next few weeks and experience the golden era of the NWO and the cruiserweight division, seeing as I missed out on it last time (only watched from 2000 so my impressions of it certainly weren't the best :pac:).

I'm also building up my Nitro (and Thunder) library, I really feel they are a worthwhile addition to any wrestling fans collection.

But you will never get through 6 years worth of Nitro's in a few weeks man! That's around 300 episodes, even if you watched one a day it would take 10 months, but good luck anyway!

I'm watching Nitro's from 98, quite enjoying them actually.

Cherry_Cola

Charisteas wrote: »

I'm also building up my Nitro (and Thunder) library, I really feel they are a worthwhile addition to any wrestling fans collection.

But you will never get through 6 years worth of Nitro's in a few weeks man! That's around 300 episodes, even if you watched one a day it would take 10 months, but good luck anyway!

I'm watching Nitro's from 98, quite enjoying them actually.

Ha yeah, I should have said next few years! Should prob just wait for the Best of Nitro dvd and save the time :pac:

jaykhunter

Cherry_Cola wrote: »

Ha yeah, I should have said next few years! Should prob just wait for the Best of Nitro dvd and save the time :pac:

If you're going to undertake such a massive job, maybe consider doing a quick review of every episode - the match card, good and bad points about the show. Just so you've something actually kinda awesome to show for your 1,000s of hours!