Not what it used to be

Chanandler Bong

Just watched WWF (its still WWF to me) for the first time in ages today, and it only confirmed my opinion that is nowhere NEAR as good as it used to be!, even in like the late 90s/early 2000s. Back when we had true legends like Stone Cold, proper DX, and all them

And why are they ruining Shawn Michaels legacy by keeping him on, with tame tame storylines and matches, he'll always be the Bret Hart nemesis to me. Similar with the Undertaker, he should have always been with the ministry (like wtf was that whole biker phase about)

I used to look forward to getting up on Saturday mornings to watch Smackdown when it had proper storylines and charismatic characters.

Shame

ShawnRaven

Chanandler Bong wrote: »

Just watched WWF (its still WWF to me) for the first time in ages today, and it only confirmed my opinion that is nowhere NEAR as good as it used to be!, even in like the late 90s/early 2000s. Back when we had true legends like Stone Cold, proper DX, and all them

Dear Christ! Are you speaking English or what? And it can still be WWF to you, but the fact of the matter is, most of us have accepted that Vince broke his agreement with the World Wildlife Fund and got his ass handed to him.

And why are they ruining Shawn Michaels legacy by keeping him on, with tame tame storylines and matches, he'll always be the Bret Hart nemesis to me. Similar with the Undertaker, he should have always been with the ministry (like wtf was that whole biker phase about)

Because Shawn is pretty much the only one that can still have a decent match from the guys from that era, and he was working programs BEFORE he was a Bret Hart nemesis. I will agree with you on Undertaker though to a degree. The biker phase was a welcome relief to me, but going from dead to alive to dead again was somewhat on the stupid side.

I used to look forward to getting up on Saturday mornings to watch Smackdown when it had proper storylines and charismatic characters.

Shame

Well you've a choice of two, the first is logistically difficult. It involves moving to the US and and subscribing to 24/7.

The good news is the other option is to not to bother watching.
Either way, life is too short to be getting upset over something that changed back to what it was in the early 90s, and will most likely revert back to attitude era style five years from now when the current set of kids get bored.

Fozzy

Ruining Shawn's legacy? He's been better since his return than he was in the 90's

WWE has its good points and its bad points. I do think that it's a bit worse in some ways these days, but not that much. Their main problem is not having many huge stars

But it sounds like you've got a case of nostalgia. I guarantee that today's young fans will be saying how much better the current product is than whatever they're doing in ten years time. Practically all wrestling fans think that it was better when they were younger, regardless of when they started watching

OrtonViper

I truely couldn't be more sick of people complaining about today's wrestling, yes it was better in the attitude era but jeez people need to get over it.

Rjd2

OrtonViper wrote: »

I truely couldn't be more sick of people complaining about today's wrestling, yes it was better in the attitude era but jeez people need to get over it.

Testify brother! I think people need to realise the attitude era is dead and move on. You can watch today's WWE, Tna, lots of other wrestling on the internet, or watch some UFC or some other sport. However bitching about the attitude era being dead in 2009, is almost as tedious as "hardcore" Bret Hart fans booing HBK.;)

pingu_girl

Agreed, and whats worse again is the hardcore old ECW fans constantly whining about the new ECW not being the old ECW, and how WWF ripped off ECW in the first place with the whole Attitude era.

CMpunked

pingu_girl wrote: »

Agreed, and whats worse again is the hardcore old ECW fans constantly whining about the new ECW not being the old ECW, and how WWF ripped off ECW in the first place with the whole Attitude era.

I dont think i've seen (or heard, i mean read.. ) anyone on here saying that in the last while.


But wrestling just has this ability to bring up a certain nostalgia for people from when they started watching it.
And the WWE are notorious for this, all you need to do is watch the opener of any mania and they will remind you how it has been bringing people together for years. That commercial they run with people running in from the farm to watch andre square up to hogan really annoys me.

So the WWE wont let the past be the past, they keep bringing it up and reminding people. Which ultimately makes them think "This does not compare!"

Take when they brought back DX. They didn't need to.
Dx was born out of the monday night wars and the attitude era, neither of which exists anymore.
They just wanted to bring old viewers back. Which it did, to their credit.
Unfortunately for them, it made people question the present day wwe.

People would say "its not the same".
If the WWE had never reunite shawn and HHH and call them DX then people would leave Dx and their legacy in the past.

newballsplease

I agree with the OP, but its not just the the attitude era, even before that. The characters they had, the story lines. It was far more entertaining, and half of ye on this forum do nothing BUT complain about the state the wwe has gone to.
I really think they need to bring in more big name wrestlers/or title challengers(whatever you want to call them)
There is to many belts. They need to sort out the tag teams.
Ok its 'PG' now, but still, why not send someone through a table now and again.
ive noticed aswell, IMO there are very few big name stars that do moves off the top rope anymore. you dont see many submissions anymore.
lots of things make it not what it used to be. and ye know it!

Degag

ShawnRaven wrote: »

Because Shawn is pretty much the only one that can still have a decent match from the guys from that era, and he was working programs BEFORE he was a Bret Hart nemesis. I will agree with you on Undertaker though to a degree. The biker phase was a welcome relief to me, but going from dead to alive to dead again was somewhat on the stupid side.

Shawn, i've read enough of your posts to realise that you're not a fan of Takers'... fair enough, but its not like other wrestlers haven't gone through similar character changes over the years. In fact you'd probably be at pains to name 10% who did not. Mick Foley springs to mind readily.

The vast majority of the forum seems to think that HBK vs. Taker could be the match of the year, i don't think that will totally be down to HBK... Considering that Taker persistently gets good matches out of less talented individuals also seems to rebute your point of "Shawn is pretty much the only one that can still have a decent match from the guys from that era"

I'm sdure you'll have some reply to this, but i'll be ready;)

newballsplease

how can you not respect the undertaker, and what he has done through the years is beyond me.

krudler

Degag wrote: »

Shawn, i've read enough of your posts to realise that you're not a fan of Takers'... fair enough, but its not like other wrestlers haven't gone through similar character changes over the years. In fact you'd probably be at pains to name 10% who did not. Mick Foley springs to mind readily.

The vast majority of the forum seems to think that HBK vs. Taker could be the match of the year, i don't think that will totally be down to HBK... Considering that Taker persistently gets good matches out of less talented individuals also seems to rebute your point of "Shawn is pretty much the only one that can still have a decent match from the guys from that era"

I'm sdure you'll have some reply to this, but i'll be ready;)

Taker has good matches with the right oponent, Batista at WM 23 was a great match, same as with Edge at 24, compare that to his matches with Mark Henry, Koslov, Big Show and other useless big guys he's been saddled with over the years, its no coincidence that Takers best wrestlemania matches have been with talented guys, Orton, HHH, Edge, Batista was pretty much a fluke or else Dave was told to ante up that night, the rest of the streak is worthless, Mizark, Sid, Diesel, Bundy, etc

Whereas Michaels has delivered consistently fantastic performances against pretty much everyone, Taker/HBK will be match of the night for sure as the rest of the card is pretty weak or has been done to death (orton/hhh, seriously?!)

kyp_durron

I would agree that subjectively it's not as good as it used to be. Mostly due to the fact that I was a kid durring the attitude era and I was able to suspend my disbelief. These days I just see big, sweaty men in tights preforming a predetermined set of moves with a predetermined finish. As a result I just dont watch it anymore. (yet I cant help reading forums about it to see what is going on behind the scenes.)

TL;DR if you dont like it, dont watch it.

ShawnRaven

Degag wrote: »

Shawn, i've read enough of your posts to realise that you're not a fan of Takers'... fair enough, but its not like other wrestlers haven't gone through similar character changes over the years. In fact you'd probably be at pains to name 10% who did not. Mick Foley springs to mind readily.

Absolutely, I won't disagree with you there. Foley bored the living sh*t out of me after this first three years in WWE because i'd seen it all before, heard it all before. Bret Hart REALLY bored the living sh*t out of me after he came back in November 96 for similar reasons. You can only hear the same promos and watch the same five moves before the mind numbness set in. The difference is most of them had moved on from the same dumb kiddy gimmick they had been saddled with nearly 20 years ago.

The vast majority of the forum seems to think that HBK vs. Taker could be the match of the year, i don't think that will totally be down to HBK... Considering that Taker persistently gets good matches out of less talented individuals also seems to rebute your point of "Shawn is pretty much the only one that can still have a decent match from the guys from that era"

I'm sdure you'll have some reply to this, but i'll be ready;)

Are you kidding me?, Undertakers entrance lasts longer than half of his matches. And to me, a lot of his matches are exactly the bloody same. Any time he gets given the ball to run with, he gets injured. And when he buried Edge last year, I literally feared that Edge would not be able to regain momentum as a main eventer. That finish was totally out of order and was a slap in the face to any pro wrestling fan who had the misfortune to watch it. Granted he most likely didn't come up with it, but he sure as hell has the stroke to turn around and say "You're joking, right?"

People could say Shawn's matches are the same in and out too, but they're not really, the endings might be, Shawn gets beat down, Shawn recovers, Superkick bye bye (or block bye bye), but the rest of the match, nuh huh.

Be ready all you want, but if you think if i'm going to keep repeating myself year in and year out, think again. I've about three years worth of anti undertaker posts along with my reasons for them here, i'm sure you can use the search function.

ShawnRaven

krudler wrote: »

Dave was told to ante up that night, the rest of the streak is worthless, Mizark, Sid, Diesel, Bundy, etc

Broken down Jimmy Snuka, Broken down Jake Roberts, Piss Poor Jorge Gonzales, and possibly the worst hell in the cell in the history of the promotion after Al Snow's Kennel from Hell.

Hammering the point home yet, folks?

ShawnRaven

newballsplease wrote: »

how can you not respect the undertaker, and what he has done through the years is beyond me.

Not another one... search function, thank you!

CMpunked

How about a thread dedicated to the HBK v Taker match because its the only one that seems to be worth talking about.


My idea on the matter is if were really meant to believe that the two are as good as their legacys hold (granted that takers has only really been worth anything since about 2000) then this match should be quite epic.

If they pull something out which shows why they deserve to be as far up the food chain they are in the WWE then they are only doing their job and it will be talked about for a while.

If they have their same predictable matches they seem to have then it will blow and we can sit and say "What a letdown".

Their characters are going to limit them to what will happen a lot.
Take this example;
Usually nearing the end of a match there is that thing shawn does where his opponent and himself will get knocked down, shawn will rise, grab the rope, do the foot stomp thing as his opponent slowly gets up, limping possibly, turn around and get clocked with SCM.

Takers character might not work for him here. I think ive seen it once before and thats in a match with Edge where he has done the above scenario when Edge speared him.
Wrecks my head when Taker just wont sell sometimes. :mad:

DRakE

Rjd2 wrote: »

is almost as tedious as "hardcore" Bret Hart fans booing HBK.;)

still a legit pastime of mine

ShawnRaven

DRakE wrote: »

still a legit pastime of mine

To be fair, the opposite is a pastime of mine. I've notoriously heckled Dre as in Dray over the course of four years for being a Bret mark.

Cos in my own personal experience, his fans whine about as much as he did.