Wrestling back in the day....

newballsplease

Now, this is my first post on here, and im not that big of a fan of wrestling anymore.
i recently just started watching it again the odd time, but i have to say,off what i saw, it is nothing compared to the wrsetling back in the day when the likes of (Razor ramon, diesel,lex luger,macho man,123 kid,mr perfect,million dollar man,yokozuma,crush,bret hart,undertaker) all them guys were wreslting.
i dont know, maybe its because im older now, but its like, the characters they have now, are nothing like the ones ive mentioned.
plus theres only around 5/6 big star names(batista,cena,edge,hhh,orton,hardy).

maybe its because theres loads more wrestlers now then there was back then. but i just saw the tag team champions, and i was like, they are nothing compared to the headshrinkers or steiner brothers.
to me, the wwe is in a shawdow of itself, but again,maybe its because i grew out off it.
did ye guys who post here now, watch it back then, or when do you remember first watching it?

ShawnRaven

To me it's come full circle and returned back to the "new generation" era, where people have almost comic characters. Sure up til a couple of months back we had 2 Grease wannabes, a Japanese guy wanting rid of his Asian stereotype and insisting that he was a redneck, A scary overweight and oversized Samoan "bulldozer" and a guy who after nearly 18 years, is alive, but still however, somehow, DEAD!

I've gotten to the point where i've stopped watching WWE TV as i now deem it a waste of my valuable time. I just keep up with watching the PPV's. But it's been about at least two years since i last enjoyed WWE, and even that was short lived and only lasted about six months.

Now the old school stuff, i could watch again and again.
VR!

rovert

newballsplease wrote: »

maybe its because i grew out off it.

This^

The Attitude era was an anomaly so it can’t be apart of a circle, VR.

newballsplease

i think it lost its appeal around the time steve austin and the rock left.

i think they need more characters, i dont know why but i think it DOES make a difference when a wrestler has some sort of character about him, rather then just his real name. if you get me?

90s wrestling: takanka,doink,yokozuma,crush,razor,the harts,diesel,bam bam bigilo,headshrinkers,macho man, ultimate warrior,papa shango,irs,million dollar man,jeff jarrett etc etc.

i Loved it when it was then.

now i look at people like, (im not good with there names) cm punk?carlito,jimmy wang yang...ya get what im saying. there is far more wresltlers now, i think vince mc mahon has in some way, made a fortune from his business but also lost its main appeal at the same time. by haveing 3 shows and far more plain wrestlers.


PS. im not trying to pi55 people off here. just wana make my point.

newballsplease

rovert wrote: »

This^

The Attitude era was an anomaly so it can’t be apart of a circle, VR.

sorry???

rovert

newballsplease wrote: »

sorry???

In relation to?

newballsplease

rovert wrote: »

This^

The Attitude era was an anomaly so it can’t be apart of a circle, VR.

yo quoted me saying...maybe its because i grew out of it

then you said that

rovert

newballsplease wrote: »

that

Sigh, both points or one in particular? Both points are fairly clear in fairness.

Ooooo social awkwardness.

Yeah the olden days were great.I really loved them but i dont know if we will see them again .Back then alot of the wrestlers were 30 and over .
There were no young champions like you have now. Even the wrestling standard has dropped in my opinion. There are no real good promo's anymore. The tag team division is terrible. Titles dont mean anything anymore. Its really quite bad. Whats worse is wrestling is loosing so many fans to UFC.

newballsplease

rovert wrote: »

Sigh, both points or one in particular? Both points are fairly clear in fairness.

not to me buddy. never mind.

Dre as in Dray

I've watched wrestling for a long time (including the days of Razor, Diesel, etc.) and to be totally honest... I don't think its changed.

And if i had to say whether it got better or worse, i'd have to side with better. Things just move a lot faster these days and we know so much more about the WWE (via the interweb etc.) that it makes it too easy to find out what they're thinking of doing, or who's having trouble with who, etc. meaning there's not so much mystery about the people any more.


I mean.. I don't think anyone would despise Triple H if they didn't know he was married into the family. I think the wrestlers of ye olde days came across bit more legitimate because we didn't know every detail about their real life.


I will admit, there does seem to be a lack of mega names though. But I put that down to gimmicks. Everyone was a big name back then because they were hugely exaggerated caricatures of people. They were all cartoon characters. In 2008 everything has to be a little more realistic i think (don't get me wrong, there are oddball characters like Boogeyman that have surfaced, but i don't think anyone cares about them).

I think the most gimmicky you get these days would be the likes of Jesse/Festus, Cryme Tyme, Khali, etc.

Its just the way wrestling goes. If you debuted the Bushwhackers in 2008, im pretty sure they'd be met with dead silence.


The only person that seems to have avoided changing with the times is the Undertaker... and good god.. he needs to change badly. I can only watch him return so many times.



Well.. thats my opinion

Dre as in Dray wrote:

Even the wrestling standard has dropped in my opinion

:eek:

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

If you debuted the Bushwhackers in 2008, im pretty sure they'd be met with dead silence.

They did they were called The Highlanders.

These threads always annoy me: WRESTLING FANS PREFER THE WRESTLING THEY GREW WITH SHOCKER!

People say the exact same thing about cartoons. Think about this, there is a very good reason why.

rovert

newballsplease wrote: »

not to me buddy. never mind.

The first point was me answering a question you posed.

On the second point the question needs to be asked. Do you now what the word anomaly means?

newballsplease

rovert wrote: »

The first point was me answering a question you posed.

On the second point the question needs to be asked. Do you now what the word anomaly means?

No, im afraid i dont know what it means.

attitude era??? thats gone flying over my head and landed on mars.

i feel your getting a wee bit edgey with me because i brought up the topic.

Spike440

rovert wrote: »

Do you now what the word anomaly means? [sic]

I do. I'd be interested to know why you say so. Why could something like the Attitude era not happen again in due course?


EDIT: newballsplease, he means this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_Era

rovert

newballsplease wrote: »

No, im afraid i dont know what it means.

attitude era??? thats gone flying over my head and landed on mars.

i feel your getting a wee bit edgey with me because i brought up the topic.

Im not getting edgey.

Why did you say you didnt know what the attitude era was in the first place?

rovert

Spike440 wrote: »

I do. I'd be interested to know why you say so. Why could something like the Attitude era not happen again in due course?

As it was anomally and the set of unique circumstances (which were as much to do with things outside of Wrestling then inside) which created it will never again.

rovert

rovert wrote: »

They did they were called The Highlanders.

I dont think the highlanders were as exaggerated, but no one really cared about them anyway.

newballsplease

doesnt matter rovert.

another thing is....what is the deal with the divas wrestling?? its stupid.
back in the day, they were just there as managers and to look pretty!
it should have stayed that way.

ShawnRaven

newballsplease wrote: »

yo quoted me saying...maybe its because i grew out of it

then you said that

I really don't know why rovert keeps responding to my posts when I have him on ignore? I've a one in 10 chance of seeing his posts.

Which means i've a 9 in 10 chance of happiness and bliss
VR!

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont think the highlanders were as exaggerated

If you say so:

calex71

Ive been watching since i was 10 (now tipping 30) , and while i loved the good old days , I have enjoyed it for a long time since those days.

However in maybe the last 18 months or so its really started to bore me.
they just seem to want to gimic everthing, 90% (maybe im over stating)
championships are tripple threats , or fatal 4 ways etc etc , even the weeklys follow the same pattern. whats wrong with a simple one on one. with a good standard of wrestling??????

I dont post in this section very often so this has probably been discussed ad nausia but really whats with all the kicks to the head these days????

Spike440

lol... back in my day hardcore was hardcore, divas were managers, the fans weren't spoiled 10 year olds and gas was 30 cents a gallon!

Seriously nbp, everything was better back in our day, just like the new generation of fans will say in 10 years time.

rovert

rovert wrote: »

As it was anomally and the set of unique circumstances (which were as much to do with things outside of Wrestling then inside) which created it will never again.

What it was an anomally that Vince wanted to make wrestling more edgier and adding alot more shock value ? It will never happen again ? ? It happens ever few months or so. So much so there is no shock value left in wrestling.
Maybe the affect it had at that time will never happen again .

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

I really don't know why rovert keeps responding to my posts when I have him on ignore? I've a one in 10 chance of seeing his posts.

Which means i've a 9 in 10 chance of happiness and bliss
VR!

What you dont know is most of the time you are saying the exactly same thing as I am. It gets a bit repetitive for other posters so I reply to your posts and expand on them.

ShawnRaven

calex71 wrote: »

However in maybe the last 18 months or so its really started to bore me.
they just seem to want to gimic everthing, 90% (maybe im over stating)
championships are tripple threats , or fatal 4 ways etc etc , even the weeklys follow the same pattern. whats wrong with a simple one on one. with a good standard of wrestling??????

That's just basically down to Vince trying to keep as many people on the roster happy and get them all onto the PPV. Wrestlemania 16 was a classic example of this, where only one match was a 1v1 match, and that was the womens match. And even that was gimmicked.

I dont post in this section very often so this has probably been discussed ad nausia but really whats with all the kicks to the head these days????

I don't know but if it can take CP Munk out of wrestling like it did Bret Hart, i'm all for it
(you needn't bother flaming me with outrage folks, i've heard it all before, my position still stands.)

VR!

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

What it was an anomally that Vince wanted to make wrestling more edgier and adding alot more shock value ? It will never happen again ? ? It happens ever few months or so. So much so there is no shock value left in wrestling.
Maybe the affect it had at that time will never happen again .

Your view of what the Attitude era was is kind of simplistic. US culture has changed dramaticially since 1998 just for example.

Spike440

Deleted User wrote: »

It will never happen again ? ? It happens ever few months or so.

I tend to agree that we can't rule out something similar happening again given the right conditions. I do accept though that it is highly improbable to happen on the same scale. I'm open to persuasion though. I think it makes for an interesting discussion.

rovert

calex71 wrote: »

I dont post in this section very often so this has probably been discussed ad nausia but really whats with all the kicks to the head these days????

People in America especially are becoming more and more aware of the seriousness of concussions. A head injury is generally one of the most severe injuries someone can get in a sports context.

rovert

Spike440 wrote: »

I tend to agree that we can't rule out something similar happening again given the right conditions. I do accept though that it is highly improbable to happen on the same scale. I'm open to persuasion though. I think it makes for an interesting discussion.

Again there were a vast number of circumstances which allowed the Attitude Era to happen, so many in fact the likelihood of it happening again is not worth discussing.

ShawnRaven

Deleted User wrote: »

What it was an anomally that Vince wanted to make wrestling more edgier and adding alot more shock value ? It will never happen again ? ? It happens ever few months or so. So much so there is no shock value left in wrestling.
Maybe the affect it had at that time will never happen again .

I'm kinda in agreement here. The big reason that WWE nearly went down the crapper in my honest opinion, stems back to 1993 when Vince got sent down by the Federal Government, leaving Pat Patterson in charge of creative duties. Everything then goes to hell as we have Doink with a midget which would involve plauging our screens, Undertaker dying at the Royal Rumble and being strung from the rafters, And horrible fat bastid wrestlers coming in such as Men On A Mission and Bastion Booger. Not to mention that horrible double win at the Royal Rumble.

Vince was back just in time for Summerslam, however that wretched Undertaker vs Undertaker angle had already kicked off. By the end of the year, the belt is put on Kevin Nash who is still to this day the lowest money drawing champion in WWE history I believe.

Combining that with Heyman remoulding ECW to what it became, and Bischoff remoulding WCW, in the space of 18 months, fans had two alternatives to WWE to the point that it nearly sent WWE into bankrupcy (something pro WWE fans are either in denial about or just aren't aware of).

Had WWE not done the attitude era in 1997, they probably wouldn't be around today.

The moral of the story is Vince has f*cked up on more than one occasion in his time with WWE, and he can certainly do it again. So never say never.

Not saying it will happen, but it could, and very easily. Just remember, nobody saw WCW as competition when Hogan joined it in 1994.

VR!

Spike440

rovert wrote: »

Again there were a vast number of circumstances which allowed the Attitude Era to happen, so many in fact the likelihood of it happening again is not worth discussing.

Yes I did see your other post. I thought a discussion of those circumstances might be interesting, as opposed to making conclusive statements.

Gerard.C

validreasoning! wrote: »

CP Munk

Would you go way boy

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

The moral of the story is Vince has f*cked up on more than one occasion in his time with WWE, and he can certainly do it again. So never say never.

Not saying it will happen, but it could, and very easily.

No it could not WWE’s business is structured in such a way that Vince McMahon will never be that desperate or financially strapped.

validreasoning! wrote: »

Just remember, nobody saw WCW as competition when Hogan joined it in 1994.

Yeah they did WCW was finally doing very well business wise the in first half of 1994 before Hogan came in. While WWF were on the ropes at the time.

newballsplease

i read somewhere psycho sid is supposed to be going back to wwe. is that true? he must be a good age now no?

rovert

newballsplease wrote: »

i read somewhere psycho sid is supposed to be going back to wwe. is that true? he must be a good age now no?

48, it is unlikely for many reasons.

Spike440

rovert wrote: »

No it could not WWE’s business is structured in such a way that Vince McMahon will never be that desperate or financially strapped.

I agree that a change could not come about in this way, but different circumstances could yield a similar result. Any combination of factors including Vince's death, changes in the writing staff/booking staff, injury/career break of some key wrestlers, falling PPV revenue, falling viewership or changing attitudes (no pun intended) of the viewing public.

I'm not saying these things will necessarily happen, I'm saying that changes in the operating conditions could result in a creative change of direction for any company.

ShawnRaven

I would seriously doubt it, isn't he still walking with a cane after breaking his leg in 2 or 3 places back in 2001?

VR!

rovert

Spike440 wrote: »

I agree that a change could not come about in this way, but different circumstances could yield a similar result. Any combination of factors including Vince's death, changes in the writing staff/booking staff, injury/career break of some key wrestlers, falling PPV revenue, falling viewership or changing attitudes (no pun intended) of the viewing public.

I'm not saying these things will necessarily happen, I'm saying that changes in the operating conditions could result in a creative change of direction for any company.

If WWE was internally in the condition it was in 1997 (nearly out of business) today they couldnt do 90% risque they did in 1997 due to the existance of the FFC and their heavy fines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission

validreasoning! wrote: »

I would seriously doubt it, isn't he still walking with a cane after breaking his leg in 2 or 3 places back in 2001?

VR!

No he is not and Ive already answer the question.

Spike440

rovert wrote: »

If WWE was internally in the condition it was in 1997 (nearly out of business) today they couldnt do 90% risque they did in 1997 due to the existance of the FFC and their heavy fines.

Any regulatory system alters with time. In fact, it was a change in 2000 that required WWF (as it then was) to change. In the 1980s the FCC liberalised the rules and altered many of the classifications relating to public decency. At present, Attitude-esque broadcasting would fall foul of the code, but can standards change.

rovert

Spike440 wrote: »

Any regulatory system alters with time. In fact, it was a change in 2000 that required WWF (as it then was) to change. In the 1980s the FCC liberalised the rules and altered many of the classifications relating to public decency. At present, Attitude-esque broadcasting would fall foul of the code, but can standards change.

True but the religious right which was behind Bush's election, FCC and on and on will remain a strong lobby no matter what happens.

But the shock tactics of the Attitude era no longer has the same resonance with the general public. Much like South Park, Springer and Stern doesn’t anymore.

Spike440

Good point re: shock tactic ineffectiveness.

Sunset V

rovert wrote: »

48, it is unlikely for many reasons.

DDP was coming to the end of life TNA at 48 but still in great nick. From what I've read, his leg is in perfect condition now and has full movement again. So is it that unlikely. In my opinion, the greatest heel ever. Saw him in Dublin, he spat into the audience. GOLD!

rovert

Spike440 wrote: »

Good point re: shock tactic ineffectiveness.

I don’t if you are being sarcastic or genuine. I know shock tactics aren’t shock tactics if they don’t shock. I used the term "shock tactics" in this thread to mean attempted shock tactics. Vince Russo tried shock tactics and swerves in WCW & TNA to the extent the unexpected became the expected.

rovert

Sunset V wrote: »

DDP was coming to the end of life TNA at 48 but still in great nick.

Please tell me why DDP chose TNA over WWE?

Sunset V wrote: »

From what I've read, his leg is in perfect condition now and has full movement again. So is it that unlikely.

It is and where did read that now? As it is a ridiclous claim, please dont say Sid said it.

Sunset V wrote: »

In my opinion, the greatest heel ever. Saw him in Dublin, he spat into the audience. GOLD!

You've got to be joking.

Sunset V

rovert wrote: »

Please tell me why DDP chose TNA over WWE?



It is and where did read that now? As it is a ridiclous claim, please dont say Sid said it.




You've got to be joking.

Yes I was joking about that bit, I didn't put in a ridiculous smiley of some kind but yes I was joking.

Yeah me Sid go for pints / walks / hugs occasionally, he told me over a Merlot one night in Roscommon. I remembering reading it on another forum somewhere, I've tried to find it but I can't sorry about that.

Sunset V

rovert wrote: »

Please tell me why DDP chose TNA over WWE?



It is and where did read that now? As it is a ridiclous claim, please dont say Sid said it.




You've got to be joking.

Yes I was joking about that bit, I didn't put in a ridiculous smiley of some kind but yes I was joking.

Yeah me and Sid go for pints / walks / hugs occasionally, he told me over a Merlot one night in Roscommon. I remembering reading it on another forum somewhere, I've tried to find it but I can't sorry about that.

rovert

Sunset V wrote: »

Yes I was joking about that bit, I didn't put in a ridiculous smiley of some kind but yes I was joking.

Which bit are you talking about? All your points have to be jokes in fairness.

Sunset V wrote: »

I remembering reading it on another forum somewhere, I've tried to find it but I can't sorry about that.

Sounds reliable.

Sunset V

rovert wrote: »

Sounds reliable.

Thanks friend, I was pretty happy with it too. Sorry for not having concrete evidence but as I said, I tried looking for where I read but have failed to encounter it. If, and when, I stumble across it,I'll be sure to post it.

rovert

Sunset V wrote: »

Thanks friend, I was pretty happy with it too. Sorry for not having concrete evidence but as I said, I tried looking for where I read but have failed to encounter it. If, and when, I stumble across it,I'll be sure to post it.

Can you not apply your own common sense to the fact that someone with a 17-inch rod in his leg can not describe that leg as being in your words in "perfect condition?"

Here we go .....

Sids return match a few weeks back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW9zkRfvlVA&eurl=http://www.24wrestling.com/index.php?id=extras/567


Word is John Laurinaitis wants him back in the WWE Sid wants to go. But Sid admitted after that fight he wouldnt pass the wellness policy .