Past (attitude) vs Present PW

Jazzy

drayme wrote: »

Because he is from the Attitude Era durrr?

Rock has been gotten to rotten by Cena, Rock has made the best points but Rock is being too OTT IMO - current other roster members face and heel thinks the guy is a Hollywood douche.

What is left to say at this point (July)? Not only that they are both detracting from the specialness of the attraction of the match they should be building each other up instead of just fighting in the gutter.

because cena IS for the kids. and yes - the attitude era is still 8,000,000 miles better then anything ive seen in the past year and a bit (dunno about before that because I wasnt watching because it was shite so I stopped) I dont know how anyone over the age of about 13/14 can legitimately like cena as a wrestler

flahavaj

Go back and watch the Attitude Era again Jazzy. if you're a fan of actual wrestling its a bit sh*t overall really, you get far better wrestling these days down the card. For all the hot crowds and good main event characters of the Attitude Era there was a lot of dreadful rubbish as well.

GTR63

Lads you can talk down that period all you want but people will still argue that it got higher ratings, higher ppv buys & because of that their was more interest in Wrestling than their is now Vince had to give Rock a call to try to sell mania such was the lack of ideas.

flahavaj

GTR63 wrote: »

Lads you can talk down that period all you want but people will still argue that it got higher ratings, higher ppv buys & because of that their was more interest in Wrestling than their is now Vince had to give Rock a call to try to sell mania such was the lack of ideas.

That wan't really the point of my post though.

The point was people are talking down the current era and questioning why any adult would watch Cenat et al, when in fact the wrestling now is better. Its not as if the humour and content of the attitude Era was that grown up either like, it was aimed at teenage boys at best.

jaykhunter

In-ring workrate doesn't matter a damn when you have so many new, fresh, mega-over talents in compelling storylines. Don't forget the Attitude Era also contains 2000/01 when we had Benoit, Angle, Jericho, Eddie etc proping up the in-ring as well as Austin, Rock, HHH, Taker, Kane, Foley firing on all cylinders. If you want workrate you won't find it on mainstream wrestling.

In-ring workrate didn't matter a damn in the 80s either when 33 million people tuned in to watch Hogan vs Andre at The Main Event in 1988.

Wrestling is about emotional attachment and storylines. As much as you may disagree, whatever Vince says wrestling is - that's what it is; because the majority of wrestling fans ascribe to it. If it was any different, ROH wouldn't be toiling/be uber happy with 2,000 fans buying an iPPV.

It's why people remember Survivor Series 99 for Austin getting run down, and not for Angle/Stasiak

It's great that today's wrestling has a higher in-ring standard; but honestly, it's something you only notice when wrestling isn't providing fresh, compelling characters and emotionally-investing storylines.

flahavaj

jaykhunter wrote: »

In-ring workrate doesn't matter a damn when you have so many new, fresh, mega-over talents in compelling storylines. Don't forget the Attitude Era also contains 2000/01 when we had Benoit, Angle, Jericho, Eddie etc proping up the in-ring as well as Austin, Rock, HHH, Taker, Kane, Foley firing on all cylinders. If you want workrate you won't find it on mainstream wrestling.

In-ring workrate didn't matter a damn in the 80s either when 33 million people tuned in to watch Hogan vs Andre at The Main Event in 1988.

Wrestling is about emotional attachment and storylines. As much as you may disagree, whatever Vince says wrestling is - that's what it is; because the majority of wrestling fans ascribe to it. If it was any different, ROH wouldn't be toiling/be uber happy with 2,000 fans buying an iPPV.

It's why people remember Survivor Series 99 for Austin getting run down, and not for Angle/Stasiak

It's great that today's wrestling has a higher in-ring standard; but honestly, it's something you only notice when wrestling isn't providing fresh, compelling characters and emotionally-investing storylines.

It matters to some people, especially in the context of a conversation wher someone is questioning why no one over a certain age would like Cena.

No ones denying the strengths of the Attiude Era, but IMO it tends to get overrated. Go back and watch some of the PPV's a lot of it is hard to sit through these days.

GTR63

flahavaj wrote: »

That wan't really the point of my post though.

The point was people are talking down the current era and questioning why any adult would watch Cenat et al, when in fact the wrestling now is better. Its not as if the humour and content of the attitude Era was that grown up either like, it was aimed at teenage boys at best.

I'm talking about ratings,fan reactions not if its kids vs adults. Sure Too Cool with their cow pants & lame gimmick in their day were more over than most talents are now.If this is a golden age of wrestling why are they trying & failing to get Henry over yet again. As far as the wrestling being better now I don't agree much with that either "wrestling wise" Cena has more in common with a Hogan than a Austin.

parker kent

flahavaj wrote: »

That wan't really the point of my post though.

The point was people are talking down the current era and questioning why any adult would watch Cenat et al, when in fact the wrestling now is better. Its not as if the humour and content of the attitude Era was that grown up either like, it was aimed at teenage boys at best.

Fact? That's not a fact.

Wrestling is always aimed at teenage boys of all ages. Just sometimes it is better than others.

CMpunked

The workrate of today is better, granted.
But sometimes when I see Ziggler vs Morrison I just zone out or channel hop as it has no reason nor any investment on my part.
Maybe it was because I was young and niave, but the 97-02 was a great period in wrestling. There was a focus put on all elements of the product.
I love cena, I think on his greatest day it's obvious to see why he is where he is.
But sometimes that let's me down sometimes because we know what he is capable of.

flahavaj

parker kent wrote: »

Fact? That's not a fact.

Wrestling is always aimed at teenage boys of all ages. Just sometimes it is better than others.

Well grand substitute IMO. Do you agree?

parker kent

flahavaj wrote: »

Well grand substitute IMO. Do you agree?

Well it's all in everybodies opinion. I'm just saying you can't go around saying something is a fact when it isn't or put words in people's mouths. I don't think anybody is saying "all in-ring action was great in the Attitude era and that it is terrible now", so there's no real need to argue that. When people say "wrestling" I imagine they mean everything involved in the TV shows from angles to promos to in-ring action. Great wrestling means all of the above

Also, I think you're being unnecessarily harsh on the in-ring action in the Attitude era. Of course there was a lot of nonsense and terrible matches (something I've argued in the past), but there were plenty of great matches in that period. I would also add that those great matches were enhanced by the added meaning that some great angles gave them.

Also, my favourite year in WWF/WWE history was 1997. They had the perfect mixture of everything that makes wrestling great.

jaykhunter

flahavaj wrote: »

It matters to some people, especially in the context of a conversation wherew someone is questioning why no one over a certain age would like Cena. No ones denying the strengths of the Attiude Era, but IMO it tends to get overrated. Go back and watch some of the PPV's a lot of it is hard to sit through these days.

I'll agree with you that in-ring-wise now that we're not in the thrust of weekly shows as-it's-happening there's a lot of emotional investment that's lost, so isolating PPVs it might be harder to see what the fuss was about; all you might see would be some average in-ring stuff. Until Foley, Austin or Rock get on the mic of course.

It might be unfair to rate a product out of context though; "how was it at the time" is probably a fairer gauge. But I'm sure there's a fair whack of nostalgia thrown in their too. But with good cause

In-ring is a really specific niche market. I'm not sure why that's relevant to someone liking Cena though? IMO he's a poor wrestler, compounded by the fact that he's worked with the best WWE have to offer for about 6-7 years now. tbh I don't care so much about in-ring with Cena as much as I hate how his matches are sometimes laid out and his mic-work.

Jazzy

flahavaj wrote: »

Go back and watch the Attitude Era again Jazzy. if you're a fan of actual wrestling its a bit sh*t overall really, you get far better wrestling these days down the card. For all the hot crowds and good main event characters of the Attitude Era there was a lot of dreadful rubbish as well.

I have been. the nitros and raws were excellent. some absolutely amazing matches on the nitros, ruined of course by the last half an hour when it turns into hulk and the lads stinking up the ring. the raws and smackdowns of 2000 are still amazing. yes, there is a lot of rubbish on them but thats part and parcel of wrestling. what amazes me is that they are STILL pushing mark henry.
tag teams were amazing back then, you had kurt, jericho and benoit in the mid card, eddie and malenko were doing their thing too. yeah you had your val venis's and your too cools but the product was still so much better then today. they did make some things retarded - namely rikishi running over austin, but its still just so much more watchable then the raws of today. with CM Punk leaving tonight thats pretty much it for raw. all the other characters seem stifled with ****ty writing and guys that I want to see do their thing (ziggler, seamus, del rio, cody rhodes) all seem to be stuck. del rio, yeah he'll probably win the title somewhere down the line and cody well heck, hes a rhodes, he'll find a way.. but there is just so much ****ty writing and ****ty promos. K-Kwik was headlining the last PPV... the lad still cant give a promo where you arent cringing (not the right kind of cringing btw) all the way through and hes only alright in the ring.
then of course we have john cenas big ugly presence all the way through, the same cheese monger he has been for the past 5 years leading the company. just about every other person I watched wrestling with, including me, turned it off because of how little of a **** they gave about cena and just how much he was being rubbed in our faces. ive said it before, hes a great guy. he does amazing charity work and so on and there isnt a thing i can put against him and his person but as an entertainer in the ring - he sucks. hes for the kids in the exact same way hogan was back in the early 90s when i was watching then (the main difference being we actually get to see him wrestle week in week out unlike hogan). even tonight, the most exciting thing in wrestling for about 10 years has that John Cena edge to it "oh he will get fired unless he wins hurrrrrr" when it completely isnt needed. I really hope I get surprised tonight, truly I do but as with just about everything WWE these days they will find a way to make it sh*t

POSSY

In my opinion, and people may disagree, but generally the most appealing parts of wrestling is the storylines amongst the "main eventers"Of course there's a need for a good undercard, but you only need to look at previous episodes of RAW, where a pretty crappy RAW was made memorable by a good promo by a main eventer, look at CM PUNK as an example, or some of Rocks and, dare I say it for fear of being lynched, even Cena's promos, when he's not doing toilet jokes to appease the 6-12 year olds.

To my mind, that is one of the main differences today. Maybe it's due to the brand split, maybe just bad booking and a poor creative team, but in the Attitude days there were so many main eventers who could believably beat one another, either clean or not. Undertaker, Austin, Rock, HHH,Foley, Angle etc along with the likes of Kane and Big Show (both fresh), you also had the likes of Jericho and an unbelievably over mid card with people like Edge. You'd have to mention a thriving tag team division as well, I guess. I mean who doesn't remember the Hardys Vs Dudleys Vs E&C and the TLC matches etc. But the main reason people tune in is to see how they're favourite wrestlers doing or see how the mega-heels screwing people over on this episode. And in the Attitude the Main Event card was jam packed with talent, and didn't rely on guys from a previous generation coming in for one off bouts to prop it up.


And that's the problem I have with wrestling today. The main event card is sooo weak. Sure at MITB the main event has been well promoted, but it has a been there - done that feel to it, Cena fighting for his career and the honour of the WWE.... wasn't that what he was doing against Wade Barrett last year? They should have left that "you're fired" crap out of the match as everyone knows it's phony! Vince is really gonna pass up on Rock vs Cena next year ha! (although maybe a child wouldn't realize that i.e. Vince's Audience)

Creative have done a terrible job at developing the Main Event card. Sheamus was in a position where a match against Cena could have believably gone either way, now he's loosing to Sin Cara on SD... why the hell bury him at the hands of HHH (returning for all of 2 months!) and move him to SD, crazy! And I'm not just saying that as he's Irish but as an example.


To sum up, and I know it's been a bit of a rant, but WWE have developed this situation where no one can believe anyone will go clean over Cena on RAW or Orton on SD. In the Attitude era you just didn't know who was gonna win a big main event match, and that's the difference. Wrestling use to give you butterflies in your stomach before a big main event, now it just disappoints after a main event.

jaykhunter

Seeing this eternal debate become it's own thread (surely it can't be the first?) the first thing that sprung to mind was

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFJJLnFb40g

Thank you, I edited and uploaded it myself

Any chance we could all agree that today's characters/storylines are cumulitively inferior to the attitude era, whilst the actual in-ring work is generally of a much higher standard? The Attitude Era wasn't untouchable and there is still things to enjoy in the PG Era...but there's still a sizeable divide in overall entertainment?

I think the notion can be applied in that there's so much discussion about Punk's promos and storyline these last few weeks; and extremely barren chatter about the excellent chemistry and match quality Christian and Orton have.

Storyline > in-ring work for the extreme majority of fans; so the prevailing opinion would be Attitude Era > PG Era?

parker kent

POSSY wrote: »

To sum up, and I know it's been a bit of a rant, but WWE have developed this situation where no one can believe anyone will go clean over Cena on RAW or Orton on SD. In the Attitude era you just didn't know who was gonna win a big main event match, and that's the difference. Wrestling use to give you butterflies in your stomach before a big main event, now it just disappoints after a main event.

I agree to an extent, but the problem actually stems from the dearth of interesting characters in a thriving mid-card. Great main eventers are created in the mid-card. Without a good mid-card, there is no place to slowly build a character until they are main-event ready.

Take your Sheamus example. He was pushed to the main event way, way too early. If he arrived in an era with a strong mid-card, he could have had a decent feud and built his character and actually have gotten over before being thrown to the main event. Then compare Sheamus with The Rock who became a star when there was a strong mid-card. His act was honed to perfection by the time he was a main eventer. You believed in him and looked forward to his matches because of how he was built as a mid-carder. His mid-card feud with HHH was great and got them both over before making the leap to the main events.

Main eventers don't arrive from nowhere. So that is why I lament the wasteland that is the current WWE mid-card scene. Some very talented wrestlers there, but there is zero interest being created in them.

Charisteas

jaykhunter wrote: »

Any chance we could all agree that today's characters/storylines are cumulitively inferior to the attitude era, whilst the actual in-ring work is generally of a much higher standard?

If you look at the 'What would you consider to be the greatest ever ppv in wrestling?' thread, the evidence would suggest otherwise;

• One guy says Summerslam 2002 - 10 people thank the post, numerous others agree in other posts.

• Wrestlemania 17 gets a ton of love.

• Wrestlemania 19 has several mentiones.

• Survivor Series 2002 and Backlash 2000 are also mentioned a few times, and then there are a few other random PPV's from the Attitude Era including a couple from WCW and ECW.

Not one person mentioned any WWE PPV of the last 5 years. And we are talking about PPV's, where backstage skits and promos are of a minimum, so people must be voting on the actual in-ring wrestling.

Maybe the quality of the wrestling is better on today's Raw and Smackdown, but PPV wise Attitude Era seems to score again.

flahavaj

Charisteas wrote: »

If you look at the 'What would you consider to be the greatest ever ppv in wrestling?' thread, the evidence would suggest otherwise;

• One guy says Summerslam 2002 - 10 people thank the post, numerous others agree in other posts.

• Wrestlemania 17 gets a ton of love.

• Wrestlemania 19 has several mentiones.

• Survivor Series 2002 and Backlash 2000 are also mentioned a few times, and then there are a few other random PPV's from the Attitude Era including a couple from WCW and ECW.

Not one person mentioned any WWE PPV of the last 5 years. And we are talking about PPV's, where backstage skits and promos are of a minimum, so people must be voting on the actual in-ring wrestling.

Maybe the quality of the wrestling is better on today's Raw and Smackdown, but PPV wise Attitude Era seems to score again.

Having the single best PPV from a particular era is in no way a good reflection of the general quality of the in ring product of the PPV's and by extension the product from that era.

Its like saying the best player ever was Maradona, therefore football overall was better in the 80's. Nonsense.

parker kent

flahavaj wrote: »

Having the single best PPV in a particular era is in no way a good reflection of the general quality of the in ring product of the PPV's and by extension the product.

But surely if the in-ring action was better now, there'd be a few PPVs turning up on such lists? As he mentioned, it is more than just a single PPV being mentioned. That era had fantastic in-ring action.

This era has OK action with some occasional top class matches like the Smackdown Elimination Chamber, Christian/Orton, Christian/Del Rio etc.

I'm talking about just the WWE here btw.

flahavaj

parker kent wrote: »

But surely if the in-ring action was better now, there'd be a few PPVs turning up on such lists? As he mentioned, it is more than just a single PPV being mentioned. That era had fantastic in-ring action.

This era has OK action with some occasional top class matches like the Smackdown Elimination Chamber, Christian/Orton, Christian/Del Rio etc.

I'm talking about just the WWE here btw.

I just don't think its a valid way of judging this particular arument. Just because there were a handful of exceptional PPV's in the late 90's doesn't necessarily mean the wrestling was better overall.

parker kent

flahavaj wrote: »

I just don't think its a valid way of judging this particular arument. Just because there were a handful of exceptional PPV's in the late 90's doesn't necessarily mean the wrestling was better overall.

There was more than a handful. The way you are talking, you'd think it was still the era of squash matches. PPVs regularly featured top-class matches in the Attitude era.

I don't see how mentioning that not one single PPV in the last 5 years stands out with people here for its in-ring action is not a valid argument.

Charisteas

flahavaj wrote: »

Having the single best PPV from a particular era is in no way a good reflection of the general quality of the in ring product of the PPV's and by extension the product from that era.

Its like saying the best player ever was Maradona, therefore football overall was better in the 80's. Nonsense.

Maradona was the greatest player ever, and would probably be our version of WM17 or Summerslam02, but it's not just the single best PPV though is it, the top 10 mentioned in that other thread were all from the Attitude Era and a big fat zero PPV's were mentioned from the current era.

POSSY

parker kent wrote: »

I agree to an extent, but the problem actually stems from the dearth of interesting characters in a thriving mid-card. Great main eventers are created in the mid-card. Without a good mid-card, there is no place to slowly build a character until they are main-event ready.

Take your Sheamus example. He was pushed to the main event way, way too early. If he arrived in an era with a strong mid-card, he could have had a decent feud and built his character and actually have gotten over before being thrown to the main event. Then compare Sheamus with The Rock who became a star when there was a strong mid-card. His act was honed to perfection by the time he was a main eventer. You believed in him and looked forward to his matches because of how he was built as a mid-carder. His mid-card feud with HHH was great and got them both over before making the leap to the main events.

Main eventers don't arrive from nowhere. So that is why I lament the wasteland that is the current WWE mid-card scene. Some very talented wrestlers there, but there is zero interest being created in them.

I get what you mean, but if you look at the sheer size of the mid-card at the moment, and the abilities of many of them such as Kofi, Swaggger, etc it is clear creative have failed in a major way. Some of these guys have been around for a long time now but creative have left them become stale. I mean Swagger, a former World Champ, had a ridiculous involvement in Mania this year was a shambles.

In fact the whole lack of a strong Main Event has led to a state where Cena has become so stale because it would be practically impossible for him to become a heel. I mean in all reality who could be the foil against a heel Cena, and don't say Rock because we all know he's not back for long!

That was another great feature of the Attitude days. A mega face could become a heel so easily by aligning himself with Vince, with Vince's appearances sporadic and no bad-guy in charge it's harder for someone who's mega over to change now, imo.

flahavaj

parker kent wrote: »

There was more than a handful. The way you are talking, you'd think it was still the era of squash matches. PPVs regularly featured top-class matches in the Attitude era.

I don't see how mentioning that not one single PPV in the last 5 years stands out with people here for its in-ring action is not a valid argument.

I'm noy saying the Attitude Era was sh*te by any means, don't put words in my mouth. IMO it was the best era of WWF/E wrestling ever. But I do think the in-ring product wasn't as good as it is sometimes made out and is sometimes viewed through rose-tinted glasses.

I don't think the answers to a thread asking "what was the best PPV ever" is a good measure of the overall workrate of Attitude vs PG era though. Attitude happens to have some of the best PPV's ever so its always gonna dominate. That doesn't mean PG era PPV's don't have better depth workrate down the card, as well as on TV.

I think its fair enough to argue the case of the Attitude Era, But using that thread is somewhat misleading and unnecessary tbh.

parker kent

flahavaj wrote: »

Its like saying the best player ever was Maradona, therefore football overall was better in the 80's. Nonsense.

FYI it is more like saying that the 1982 and 1986 World Cups were the most exciting, therefore football was more exciting in the 1980s. What you are suggesting would be true if somebody said Steve Austin is the best wrestler ever, therefore the WWE was better in that era.

Note: I'm not saying any of the above are my opinions on WCs or Steve Austin!

flahavaj

parker kent wrote: »

FYI it is more like saying that the 1982 and 1986 World Cups were the most exciting, therefore football was more exciting in the 1980s. What you are suggesting would be true if somebody said Steve Austin is the best wrestler ever, therefore the WWE was better in that era.

Note: I'm not saying any of the above are my opinions on WCs or Steve Austin!

Even if the 1982 and 1986 World Cups were the best, basing your opinion on an entire decade of football compared with another decade (say the 1990's) on the basis of two short competitions would be a crock of sh*t. Likewise for PPV's.

This is adding an unecessary element to an argument that can be had with much more validity without this useless criterion. You have to look at the overall quality of the wrestling and not just focus on the absolute best ones. You could have an outstanding wrestlemania in a year of absolute mediocrity otherwise for example.

sky88

i think the main difference is that everyone had a character and some sort of purpose back in the atitude era hell crash holly was a huge part of it but now people pop up on raw/sd then disapear

parker kent

flahavaj wrote: »

Even if the 1982 and 1986 World Cups were the best, basing your opinion on an entire decade of football compared with another decade (say the 1990's) on the basis of two short competitions would be a crock of sh*t. Likewise for PPV's.

This is adding an unecessary element to an argument that can be had with much more validity without this useless criterion. You have to look at the overall quality of the wrestling and not just focus on the absolute best ones. You could have an outstanding wrestlemania in a year of absolute mediocrity otherwise for example.

Well I was just correcting your comparison as it was a bit ridiculous. We're not just focusing on the absolute best, just stating that according to everybody who posted in that thread a large amount of the absolute best came from that era. You'll find similar results in any similar poll, article etc.

If pointing out that one of the two eras being discussed had some of the best PPVs of all time in terms of in-ring action whereas the other has none, is not valid, I'm not sure I understand your logic. It is just one example showing why people say that era was better.

flahavaj

parker kent wrote: »

Well I was just correcting your comparison as it was a bit ridiculous. We're not just focusing on the absolute best, just stating that according to everybody who posted in that thread a large amount of the absolute best came from that era. You'll find similar results in any similar poll, article etc.

If pointing out that one of the two eras being discussed had some of the best PPVs of all time in terms of in-ring action whereas the other has none, is not valid, I'm not sure I understand your logic. It is just one example showing why people say that era was better.

But those PPV's highlughted in the thread ampount to a small % of the PPv's in teh Attitude Era. Thats it. To compare both eras you'd need to look at the quality of the wrestling week in week out, and overall on PPV's and not just on the ones highlighted in that thread. I'm jusv repeating my point now so i'll leave it at that.

Anyway do any of the PPv's thaty Cristeas has highlighted apart from WM 17 actually count as Attitude Era?

The 2002 ones certaibly aren't anyway, arguabl WM 19 isn't either.

GTR63

One thing that nobody can deny is that wwe had far greater ability at getting guys over back in the late 90's than they do now. Even naff acts like Too Cool, the APA & Head Cheese used to get great pops in them times, now it feels like wwe don't have as good of a grasp on what gets a response from a diverse audience.

Charisteas

flahavaj wrote: »

Anyway do any of the PPv's thaty Cristeas has highlighted apart from WM 17 actually count as Attitude Era?

The 2002 ones certaibly aren't anyway, arguabl WM 19 isn't either.

Why aren't they? It's not like the Attitude Era had an official time-line. It could have been during the Monday Night Wars which would be 1995-2001. It could have started when Steve Austin made that 3:16 speech on Jake Roberts. Could have been the debut of DX.

But for me, it ended at Wrestlemania 2003 as that was Austin's last match with the company, and the birth of a new #1 contender on the following Smackdown - John Cena. Who knows really.

And it's Charisteas, not Cristeas but no offence taken :cool:

flahavaj

Charisteas wrote: »

Why aren't they? It's not like the Attitude Era had an official time-line. It could have been during the Monday Night Wars which would be 1995-2001. It could have started when Steve Austin made that 3:16 speech on Jake Roberts. Could have been the debut of DX.

But for me, it ended at Wrestlemania 2003 as that was Austin's last match with the company, and the birth of a new #1 contender on the following Smackdown - John Cena. Who knows really.

And it's Charisteas, not Cristeas but no offence taken :cool:

I'd have put the Attitude Era as roughly 1998 to 2001 (the seeds were sown in 1996 with Austin being made KOTR, so you could include from then if you like. By the time the Invasion storylin was in full swing it was well and truluy dead IMO. It ended essentially with the end of teh Monday Night Wars, or even earlier.

briany

Also, my favourite year in WWF/WWE history was 1997. They had the perfect mixture of everything that makes wrestling great.

Agreed. The first half of '98 was fantastic too. Now it's not that after that it was bad, it's just that some aspects of the attitude era became overdone with the gigantic factions like the Corporate Ministry or the NWO heaving with maybe 10 to 20 members and taking up time with interview segments and constant, constant run ins. Then the edgy story lines going into the realm of downright bad taste i.e. Mae Young's hand, Katie Vick etc.

Around 2001, with the buy-out of WCW, there was something of renaissance with the influx of new talent and a pulling back of the edgyness, giving a more of a focus on the wrestling once again. I think the Invasion era's very underrated.

flahavaj

Charisteas wrote: »

If you look at the 'What would you consider to be the greatest ever ppv in wrestling?' thread, the evidence would suggest otherwise;

• One guy says Summerslam 2002 - 10 people thank the post, numerous others agree in other posts.

• Wrestlemania 17 gets a ton of love.

• Wrestlemania 19 has several mentiones.

• Survivor Series 2002 and Backlash 2000 are also mentioned a few times, and then there are a few other random PPV's from the Attitude Era including a couple from WCW and ECW.

Not one person mentioned any WWE PPV of the last 5 years. And we are talking about PPV's, where backstage skits and promos are of a minimum, so people must be voting on the actual in-ring wrestling.

Maybe the quality of the wrestling is better on today's Raw and Smackdown, but PPV wise Attitude Era seems to score again.

We might want to do that thread all over again methinks.

MITB 2011 FTW.

Liam O

flahavaj wrote: »

We might want to do that thread all over again methinks.

MITB 2011 FTW.

botches included

Rjd2

flahavaj wrote: »

We might want to do that thread all over again methinks.

MITB 2011 FTW.

Aye fair play to Kelly and not as attractive Bella's sister they really proved the PG era bashers wrong tonight.:pac:

flahavaj

Rjd2 wrote: »

Aye fair play to Kelly and not as attractive Bella's sister they really proved the PG era bashers wrong tonight.:pac:

Big Show and his flying shoulder blocks were the clincher.