Can WWE ever get back to the glory days?

briany

Vince Mcmahon is simply doing what needs to be done for the time and place his company finds itself in. If the majority of hormonal 18 to 30 year old males have moved on to MMA for their fight fix, how would some pretend fighting ever hope to compete? Just because some die hard fans wish some imagined old days to come back does not mean that the WWE will go running back to something that worked for them years ago.

I miss old time wrestling things too but that's what Youtube is for and even then, a lot of it is not as good as I thought I remembered.

What was catagorically better was the crowd reaction. When the crowds back then were hot, they were hot and they were sometimes just buzzing the whole way through a segment which is so rare now. Is that a symptom of today's shorter attention span? Yes would be my guess.

It is also my guess that even a charismatic wrestler would have a serious uphill battle if he came into the fold looking like Cactus Jack and that's tragic because it's only recently that it seems like all wrestlers in the WWE have become perfectly sculpted Adonis like characters. It doesn't seem to leave much room for anything else. That samey-ness leads to quite a dry atmosphere when you have crew cut muscular Chad Rogenson coming out to "Devil Holler" by Kinex in yellow spandex "This kid is really something. He's an ex-marine and trains in Jiu Jitsu." and he's fighting Josh Chadson, coming out to "Stone broken" by Engine Red, an NXT winner and in blue spandex with a bald head and slightly less muscular but a little bit more tanned, a former linebacker and two time U.S. champion. Kick, punch, Irish whip, dropkick, fancy special move (Had by Chad). Tune in to next week's US title match between Chad Rogenson and 20 year old Evan Joshcastle! How are we supposed to get emotionally involved in this kind of match? Where's the personality, the psychology?

Ridley

rossie1977 wrote: »

sorry but no way, some of the greatest wrestling characters emerged from wwf in the 80s, piper, mr perfect, bobby heenan, jake roberts, million dollar man, rick rude, fantastic characters in pg, you saying movies like raiders of the lost ark and back to the future were cheesy those were pg

Dashing Cody Rhodes is cheesy as hell and he's in no way a bad character.

orestes

Ah christ, I take a year off from this place and come back to the same old arguements?

In my opinion the WWE will get back to the glory days, and go beyond them, but not in the minds of the fans who were there at the time. It was just one of those things of perfect timing and the stars coming into alignment, literally. Kayfabe was coming to an end and so was the generation that had grown up with it.

The generation that had made WWE (hulkamaniacs, warrior fans, etc) were suddenly disenfranchised teenagers (not saying they were just disenfranchised with WWE, thats just a teenagers attitude to the world in general). In a kick back to all of that the WWE recreated itself to suit the attitude of the day, hence the attitude era. From Hogan telling you to say your prayers to Austin giving the finger. Their fans were growing up so they needed to grow up with them and give them characters they could relate to as people rather than gimmicks, and every 20 year old would fukking love to whack their boss with a steel chair, no matter how many old Hogan shirts he owns. DX, Austin, Rock (the guy every guy in their twenties wished he had the confidence to be), Foley (cos every pissed off guy loves a victim finally making it), they were all the personifiaction of facets of the mind-sets of WWEs key target audience at the time, p*ssed off dissilusioned white young males. Sure, there were some great matches, but are they really what you think of when you think of the attitude era?

Another point Id like to make is net boards have spent year giving out that WWE wont give young talent a chance, Cena, HHH, wah wah wah. Look at their roster right now. Alberto Del Rio is going to WM, The Nexus gave a bunch of guys a break, and then there are people like Kofi, Ziggler, Morrisson, Ryder going way up too. Fukk, the Miz is champ ffs! If you're gonna complain that the WWE isn't giving the new guys a chance, it's hardly fair for you not to give them one either

grames_bond

^^^ Spot f*cking on mate!! couldnt agree more!

Im a big fan of the youth movement of today, i can really see the likes of miz and ziggler etc being absolute stars! (and jo mo when he learns how to speak)

Orestes - welcome back btw!!

orestes

grames_bond wrote: »

Orestes - welcome back btw!!

Who the fukk are you?!

*hic*

orestes

flahavaj wrote: »

Also the answer to the OP, is no, because MMA is here to stay.

Missed this, my apologies. I agree MMA is defintely here to stay and will take a massive chunk of the WWE market (see my comments in my post above about p*ssed off males, these days they dont wanna see guys pretending to beat each other up, they want them to see them knock each other out for real), but for some reason I cant help but think that WWE will last. Again, the thing about that era that people remember isnt the numbers or the matches imo, its how engaging it was so they keep coming back, and thats where I need to get out my calculator

jaykhunter

I don't know what Boards was like a year ago but everyone in this thread is pretty much in agreement, some more optimistic than others.

It's a fair point to say that WWF properly reflected society at the time (or what people wanted in their wrestling) but having a confluence of talent like in the Hulkamania Era or the Monday Night Wars can't be recreated now that WWE are playing in the sandbox all by themselves. Judging by today's conventions, are p'd off teenagers clamering to have a 5-round legitimate sporting contest with their boss? :pac: Something tells me 2011 Cena/Orton and co doesn't resonate as deeply as Rock/Austin etc did.

When WWF went national (and international) the slate/book on wrestling was pretty much wiped clean and re-written, and the Attitude Era brought shoots, dissolution of typical heel/face, fresh storylines/gimmicks/match stipulations/hardcore wrestling etc. I've no idea how WWE would contend to re-write the rules once again; unless it's just waiting for the current crop of fans to go away and start fresh with a new crop of fans.

I wonder if there's any corrolation between # of legitimate places to work in the US and the popularity of American wrestling. Whenever Rey goes that'll be the last of the "world-trained" wrestlers like Benoit, Jericho etc. I also wonder if WWE/Triple H didn't sabotage careers in the early 2000s (RVD, Kane, Goldberg, Umaga, Booker T etc) we'd be in such a rut now.

Nowadays we have one company that was terrified of change and would rather slowly lose their fanbase than get fully behind new stars (2005-2009). Thankfully 2010 has seen WWE really try to make new stars, even if practically every star they elevate (Miz, Kofi, Swagger etc), WWE have sabotaged. (Which is a booking problem, not a talent problem, but there is a talent problem too)

We'll just have to "hold out" until the aforementioned are established, have experience and get really good. Maybe in 5 years when everyone working in the established main event now is actually retired, hopefully we'll be in another golden era. How you'd expect to do that by yourself when your company's still making > $30,000,000 profit is beyond me though.

jaykhunter

I forgot to mention, but back in the Hulkamania Era and going into the Attitude Era, WWF had only 2 hours of programming per week. Now we have 4 main hours (RAW/SD) and 2 extra hours (NXT/Superstars); numerous 3 hour specials and 14 (now 13) PPVs/year. That kind of oversaturation can hardly lead to another boom period - whatever catches fire will be gobbled up and ran into the ground fairly quickly.

Orton and Cena squaring off at the Rumble, pointing to the WM sign --and only crickets responding-- was evidence of that.

The average age of the roster (20s, early 30s at best) has something to do with it, as it takes many years (if not possibly decades) to get really good. Insteading of poaching ready-made seasoned talent (from the territories, or later from WCW); WWE are building stars from the ground-up. So we are seeing them when they're at their most crap.

I really hope for a return to gimmicks as well (more Dashing please) as the "i'm a bad-ass who wears plain black trunks just like Austin did" is completely played out. I'm so glad most of the roster try to have an interesting outfit. Just less stupid names like Dolph Ziggler or McGuillibuddies.

ricero

was looking back at the invasion angle and before that they were great stories. i loved the stalker and undertaker storyline

Exclamation Marc

jaykhunter wrote: »

I forgot to mention, but back in the Hulkamania Era and going into the Attitude Era, WWF had only 2 hours of programming per week. Now we have 4 main hours (RAW/SD) and 2 extra hours (NXT/Superstars); numerous 3 hour specials and 14 (now 13) PPVs/year. That kind of oversaturation can hardly lead to another boom period - whatever catches fire will be gobbled up and ran into the ground fairly quickly.

Orton and Cena squaring off at the Rumble, pointing to the WM sign --and only crickets responding-- was evidence of that.

The average age of the roster (20s, early 30s at best) has something to do with it, as it takes many years (if not possibly decades) to get really good. Insteading of poaching ready-made seasoned talent (from the territories, or later from WCW); WWE are building stars from the ground-up. So we are seeing them when they're at their most crap.

I really hope for a return to gimmicks as well (more Dashing please) as the "i'm a bad-ass who wears plain black trunks just like Austin did" is completely played out. I'm so glad most of the roster try to have an interesting outfit. Just less stupid names like Dolph Ziggler or McGuillibuddies.

Great post.

Wolfe Tone

I just want to see wrestling presented as a real sport again with simple storylines and reasons to fight, then it wont make me feel like a retard when I watch it. Simple gimmicks, someone like undertaker is ok now and again

Exclamation Marc

rossie1977 wrote: »

in fairness that barrett and cena feud did go on for 7 months and barrett did get the upper hand, he did beat cena which forced him to be his slave, he did make cena retire

He only ever had the upper hand on paper, Cena was his slave yet still doing what he wanted. Cena was fired and still kicking lumps out of Nexus. And now Cena can single handedly destroy Nexus, so to say they ever realy got the upper hand is a bit off because Nexus' upper hand was a technicality, Cena was still walking all over them.

rossie1977 wrote: »

problem with longer feuds these days is fans complain about them too, look at cena and orton, terrific feud at the back end of 2009, some great matches but what were the majority of the iwc saying "not another orton cena match, enough already" and that was 3 ppvs in

Yes but thats because it was match after match after match with very little development short of "hey lets fight again". Having a long feud doesn't mean having to fight every 4 weeks, its how its built and how good the promos were. The feud never seemed to develop it was just ill fight you at PPV1, ill fight you at PPV2 etc etc, it never strayed away from the formula. Even look at WCW, it took Sting months of being in the rafters and appearing to finally take on the NWO and wow it was amazing. The wait and the tension and the payoff was incredible. But now all the feuds seem to need to happen right now. Nothing can be put on the long finger. A good long feud is months of development and sometimes time apart not getting that moment where they finally fight for a long while. The Cena Orton feud sucked because it was the same match every 4 weeks, if the feud went on as long with fewer fights it would have been much more effective.

rossie1977 wrote: »

the recent mysterio/del rio feud shows that the old way is still in evidence, i think writers are just too lazy today

I think that feud is the exception rather than the example. My point is that every day after a PPV they have the next PPV matches announced and then they spend 3 weeks varying matches and usually building the feud quite poorly. I agree the Del Rio one was done well, its just the majority of PPV cards are so poorly built.

rossie1977 wrote: »

depends, i knew glen jacobs was going to be kane months before it happened by reading non kayfabe mags and fanzines back in 1997, i knew nash and hall were leaving wwe as early as feb/march 1996 thanks to powerslam mag, pretty simple solution don't read wrestlings threads/forums in the week leading up to a ppv or raw

Well that is true and I guess thats down to the user, in that if I read up on news I'm bound to be spoiled so I do take that point. I guess now though NOTHING gets past the IWC, whereas back in the day some things were only found out by surprise.

rossie1977 wrote: »

sorry but no way, some of the greatest wrestling characters emerged from wwf in the 80s, piper, mr perfect, bobby heenan, jake roberts, million dollar man, rick rude, fantastic characters in pg, you saying movies like raiders of the lost ark and back to the future were cheesy those were pg

I never said PG equalled cheesy, I said that because of the new era, a lot of characters are ending up very cheesy because they're not being booked right. Movies have nothing to do with it. You're completely misreading my post or maybe I'm not putting it across correctly. Those characters were some of my favorites and yes they were in the PG era, they're not bad characters because of the PG-ness.

My point is that you look at Orton for example who they now call "The Viper" amongst 100 other things, and they have him doing these OTT actions like writhing like a snake pre-move, which is really awful to watch, it wouldn't surprise me if they started to make him hiss next. He can be a "viper" without all this crap. Chris Benoit was a rabid wolverine, but he never got down on all fours and started acting like an actual wolverine. It just seems that because of the PG era that WWE are now dialling up the wacky to compensate for not being able to be as edgy as the used to be. They can create great characters like Del Rio without making it cheesy. Did Jake Roberts become the terror he did by labelling other wrestlers "CM sucks" or using the word "poop", no. He did it by being an uncompromising character that wasn't cheesy, and that came in the PG era.

My main problem is the blandness of a lot of the characters. There are great new guys out there like Del Rio who has a good character, I'm not 100% branding the talent boring. But then there's this raft of characters who just have no personality. You could drop out nearly the entire mid-card and replace them tomorrow.

rossie1977 wrote: »

plenty of good promo guys in wrestling today in wwe you have punk, barrett and miz who are top class, you also have some under-rated promo guys like danielson who cut a superb promo on michael cole last year on nxt

They are good promo guys I agree. Barrett is incredible on the mic, as is Punk and Danielson. I don't think Miz is that amazing, but he's not bad. I've read that its a stricter setup now and there's less freedom with what can be said, and maybe the bad promos come from bad writing. Even still though, Barrett, Punk and Danielson don't hold a candle to the Rock, Jericho, Austin or even McMahon. They're great, but the Attitude guys I just listed were in a different league.

I think the biggest problem with the WWE now is what jaykhunter said, its the complete oversaturation of the market.

drayme

Do people really miss halcyon days of Mideon vs Gangrel?

Here is a two point to get WWE back to the glory days:

• Get off the internet and throw your laptop in the bin.
• Find a why to reverse the aging process and go back to age 6 or so.

jaykhunter

• 3. Find a dictionary, look up what halcyon means & how it's pronounced
• 4. Appreciate wrestling luminaries such as JTG, The Uzos, Mason Ryan...

drayme

jaykhunter wrote: »

• 3. Find a dictionary, look up what halcyon means & how it's pronounced
• 4. Appreciate wrestling luminaries such as JTG, The Uzos, Mason Ryan...

Buy a better dictionary.

Second, JTG and the Uzo's are much more entertaining than the punch and kick Attitude Era bridge.

The base level standard of workrate is far higher in 2011 than it was in 1998.

jaykhunter

You say that like it hasn't been better expounded over the previous 60+ posts!

If wrestling was overall "better" today then profits wouldn't be cut in half than 10 years ago.

parker kent

drayme wrote: »

Buy a better dictionary.

Second, JTG and the Uzo's are much more entertaining than the punch and kick Attitude Era bridge.

The base level standard of workrate is far higher in 2011 than it was in 1998.

You honestly think the standard of wrestling is better than 1998? Are you insane? Watch Cena, Orton etc, they are far more punch/kick oriented than the attitude era. Even look at how piledrivers, knife edged chops and plenty of other moves are now banned and/or used extremely rarely (i.e The Undertaker and HBK are the only people allowed use a pile driver or knife edged chop). Many people have commented on how lower and mid card wrestlers are not allowed use certain moves so as not to over shadow main eventers. This is why CM Punk was banned from using the Pepsi Plunge as it would have made HHH's Pedigree look poor in comparison.

The attitude era had some of the greatest matches ever (I don't see the need to limit it to 1998 as it was really 1997-2004ish that is defined by the Attitude era style). And it had some of the worst ever, much like any era. It would be a lie to say it was always brilliant or that there was not terrible angles, matches or performers.

But it had much more variation. Of course Steve Austin became limited due to his neck injury, but he had far, far more ability in ring than Cena and his psychology is far better than Orton. Anyone that doubts this should check out his Hollywood Blondes era matches with Brian Pillman.

However, I will say The Rock was an average in-ring worker, but he had people around him who covered it up to an extent.

rossie1977

jaykhunter wrote: »

If wrestling was overall "better" today then profits wouldn't be cut in half than 10 years ago.

wwe revenues and profit/loss over the past 15 years



source: won

2010 numbers

total revenues: $477,655,000
profit: $ 53,452,000

parker kent

Also, in totally off topic news, halcyon days is a much, much misused phrase. It originally specifically referred to the seven days preceding and the seven days following the Winter Solstice.

It has also been used to describe a period of tranquillity but modern users correctly use it for nostalgic reasons. Where people use it incorrectly is to use it meaning "better times". It is just nostalgia and mainly refers back to youthful days.

And to add some wrestling to the post...at least the treatment of women is a bit better in wrestling now. Still some sexism as there will always be with Vince and his writers, but not as bad as it was.

parker kent

rossie1977 wrote: »

wwe revenues and profit/loss over the past 15 years

source: won

2010 numbers

total revenues: $477,655,000
profit: $ 53,452,000

Just to note, that WWE have far more TV shows, PPVs and extra curricular activities to influence revenue. Merchandise, video games etc are also much more professional than in the 90s.

rossie1977

parker kent wrote: »

Just to note, that WWE have far more TV shows, PPVs and extra curricular activities to influence revenue. Merchandise, video games etc are also much more professional than in the 90s.

just to note wwe had a store/restaurant/nightclub in times square in the 1990s that was bringing in big money back then, you could buy austin/rock shirts everywhere in the 1990s in the states

jaykhunter

Thanks for posting that rossie; they're just figures without interpretation though. Some of the shockingly low numbers are due to shouldering the 10s of millions lost for failed ventures XFL, WWF NY/WWE The World etc...

Financial year ending & profit (to the nearest half million)
1999/56 million
2000/69 million
2001/16 million (85 million minus 69 million covering the XFL losses)
2002/42 million (minus 5 million covering the loss of the XFL, plus 4.5 million tax break for the XFL closure)
2003/-19.5 million (16 million profit minus 35.5 million covering WWF NY/WWE The World's losses)
2004/48 million
2005/39 million (which includes 1.5 million tax break from WWE The World)
April 2006/47 million
December 2006/31.5 million
2007/52 million ($16 million profit made by The Marine/See No Evil just offset the losses by The Condemned)

Although US viewers are half of what they were and buyrates are 600,000 lower than 2009, it's amazing how WWE still actually got more money in 2010 than 2009. Those international TV deals, licences and .com really came through for them!

So "half" is too rough on today's profit but fairly bang on for US TV ratings/PPV buyrates. I can only imagine what profits WWF would've gotten if they had the market penetration back then that they have today!

drayme

parker kent wrote: »

You honestly think the standard of wrestling is better than 1998? Are you insane? Watch Cena, Orton etc, they are far more punch/kick oriented than the attitude era. Even look at how piledrivers, knife edged chops and plenty of other moves are now banned and/or used extremely rarely (i.e The Undertaker and HBK are the only people allowed use a pile driver or knife edged chop). Many people have commented on how lower and mid card wrestlers are not allowed use certain moves so as not to over shadow main eventers. This is why CM Punk was banned from using the Pepsi Plunge as it would have made HHH's Pedigree look poor in comparison.

The attitude era had some of the greatest matches ever (I don't see the need to limit it to 1998 as it was really 1997-2004ish that is defined by the Attitude era style). And it had some of the worst ever, much like any era. It would be a lie to say it was always brilliant or that there was not terrible angles, matches or performers.

But it had much more variation. Of course Steve Austin became limited due to his neck injury, but he had far, far more ability in ring than Cena and his psychology is far better than Orton. Anyone that doubts this should check out his Hollywood Blondes era matches with Brian Pillman.

However, I will say The Rock was an average in-ring worker, but he had people around him who covered it up to an extent.

I said the base level standard was better and I was clearly talking about the midcard before. Nearly everything outside of the main event scene was god awful between 1997-99.

There is actually a much wider variation in moves in 2011 as much as you are complaining about piledrivers and chops. Complaining about the Pepsi Plunge is moronic it is far too dangerous to do for both wrestlers on a full time schedule anyway.

Midcarders not being allowed to use main event finishes is not new. It goes all the way to the start of Pro Wrestling. A card should build and main eventers should have stuff left to do for their match as it is the most important match on the show.

Sorry but a lot of this thread is all over the shop with rose tinted glass and somewhat vague memories. Like come on seriously:

ricero wrote: »

was looking back at the invasion angle and before that they were great stories. i loved the stalker and undertaker storyline

A lot of Attitude era doesnt hold up especially the first part of it watching it back it is very cliche and the same angles have been done by Russo over and over in WCW. It was more bad than good.

Exclamation Marc

drayme wrote: »

I said the base level standard was better and I was clearly talking about the midcard before. Nearly everything outside of the main event scene was god awful between 1997-99.

I'm sorry but that is absolute bullshít. WWE had a fantastic tag division in the late 90s with very good depth with the likes of the Legion of Doom, The New Age Outlaws, Jarrett/Hart, the APA, Hardy/Boyz and even interesting and entertaining teams that may not have technically been wonderful but at least added variety like the Godwinns, Headbangers, Kane/Xpac. WWE even used the tag titles to push bigger stories like the Rock and Sock Connection.

WWE had a competitive, compelling and downright fantastic IC title scene. Owen Hart was never in the main event scene, and he was wonderful to watch. Kurt Angle was a midcarder during late 1999, he was great television. The Rock, Steve Austin, Triple H, Edge and Jericho were all midcarders during that time and were IC title holders. Even the European title was fun. HBK, HHH, Owen Hart, D'Lo all held the European title then, are you saying they were godawful??? Hmmmm don't think so. They were simply fantastic to watch.

They also had extremely fun Hardcore matches which were great light relief watching Crash Holly act like a lunatic.

Secondary titles mean nothing these days and are an afterthought. Look how the tag division means nothing these days, WWE see every tag team as a potential feud between the two. They broke up the Hart Dynasty and nobody got a rub. The Usos don't even get a TV entrance anymore, and the tag champs are a comedy act. Daniel Bryan is the US champion and he might as well not have it, as his big story is that he's in a love triangle with the bloody Bella twins. Great way to use the mid-card.

drayme wrote: »

Midcarders not being allowed to use main event finishes is not new. It goes all the way to the start of Pro Wrestling. A card should build and main eventers should have stuff left to do for their match as it is the most important match on the show.

Well thats just wrong as well. All the guys I've listed who were mid-card WWE champions had the wonderful finishers that they kept with them to the top of the card.

drayme wrote: »

A lot of Attitude era doesnt hold up especially the first part of it watching it back it is very cliche and the same angles have been done by Russo over and over in WCW. It was more bad than good.

Again total rubbish but I guess thats an opinion. I have the best of Raw volumes 1-3 which were from around 1998 onwards, and I watch them every couple of months and its fantastic viewing, I'd take it over a lot of the dirge thats put out these days and if you ever get the chance to watch them you should, because they make great viewing for what is compelling television from top to bottom.

parker kent

rossie1977 wrote: »

just to note wwe had a store/restaurant/nightclub in times square in the 1990s that was bringing in big money back then, you could buy austin/rock shirts everywhere in the 1990s in the states

WWF New York was yet another financial bomb for Vince.

WWF themselves have acknowledged that their merchandising has vastly improved since the 90s. There is more to merchandise than people in the crowd wearing t-shirts. The last version of D-X made far more money from merchandise than the original run. Think of things like hats, the glow sticks, coats etc. Then think about the tie in with Mattel and their action figures. Again it is much more professional. There is a far greater visibility of WWE merchandise worldwide now, as opposed the late 90s when it was mainly available in the USA and at events. They are using their global audience much more successfully than at any time in the past.

drayme

Why did you go on a random rant about titles? When all I have talking about is match quality bell to bell?

FireballPitcher wrote: »

Well thats just wrong as well. All the guys I've listed who were mid-card WWE champions had the wonderful finishers that they kept with them to the top of the card.

???

Which guys? Where?

FireballPitcher wrote: »

Again total rubbish but I guess thats an opinion. I have the best of Raw volumes 1-3 which were from around 1998 onwards, and I watch them every couple of months and its fantastic viewing, I'd take it over a lot of the dirge thats put out these days and if you ever get the chance to watch them you should, because they make great viewing for what is compelling television from top to bottom.

Cool story. There is a lot more Wrestlecrap there and a lot more face and heel turns that dont make sense and the like. You probably will always feel nostalgic about the Wrestling you watched growing up but if you look at it objectively and artistically a lot of it is juvenile trash.

parker kent

drayme wrote: »

I said the base level standard was better and I was clearly talking about the midcard before. Nearly everything outside of the main event scene was god awful between 1997-99.

There is actually a much wider variation in moves in 2011 as much as you are complaining about piledrivers and chops. Complaining about the Pepsi Plunge is moronic it is far too dangerous to do for both wrestlers on a full time schedule anyway.

Midcarders not being allowed to use main event finishes is not new. It goes all the way to the start of Pro Wrestling. A card should build and main eventers should have stuff left to do for their match as it is the most important match on the show.

Sorry but a lot of this thread is all over the shop with rose tinted glass and somewhat vague memories. Like come on seriously:

A lot of Attitude era doesnt hold up especially the first part of it watching it back it is very cliche and the same angles have been done by Russo over and over in WCW. It was more bad than good.

OK first off, you may be new to this thread so you have probably missed many posts where I have said that many people ignore the many faults of the WWF circa 1997-2004. Also you cannot tar everybody with the same brush, some posters have rose tinted views of the past, not everybody. I was not being "moronic", I am just stating an example of a wrestler not being allowed perform a move he has used throughout his career.

But it is frankly ridiculous to say the mid card is better now than it was back then. Don't forget that HHH and The Rock were having a mid card feud in 1998. Their ladder match at Summerslam was fantastic. Just look at the card for Summerslam 98.

WWF European Championship Match: Val Venis vs D'Lo Brown
The Oddities vs Kei en Tai
"Hair vs Hair" Match: X-Pac vs Jeff Jarrett
Mixed Tag Team Match: Sable & Edge vs Marc Mero & Jackie
Lion's Den Match: Ken Shamrock vs Owen Hart
WWF Tag Team Championship Match (NO DQ/Falls Count Anywhere): Kane & Mankind vs New Age Outlaws
Ladder Match for the WWF Intercontinental Championship: Triple H vs The Rock
World Wrestling Federation Championship Match: The Undertaker vs Stone Cold Steve Austin

Apart from the second match, that is a fantastic card. It features numerous well thought out angles and matches that actually mean something. Think of the tag team scene in the Attitude era as is mentioned above. Where are the modern Dudley Boys, Edge/Christian, Hardy Boys, New Age Outlaws etc?

As for your comment about their being different styles now, that is ridiculous. They have pretty much eliminated almost all variation in styles. The developmental system which most newcomers come through ensures they all have similar styles. After all, HHH and HBK stated that CM Punk "didn't know how to work". Ditto Bryan Danielson, he is wrestling in a very WWE style and he is probably the most distinct performer these days. Rey Mysterio is another example of somebody with a distinct style in the past who now conforms to the WWE style. Whereas in the Attitude era, you had brawlers (Austin, Foley etc), technical wrestlers (Benoit, Angle etc), high fliers (E&C, Hardy Boys etc) and plenty of other styles. Now they are all pretty interchangeable and casual viewers will see little difference in anybody.

The reason for a card like the above Summerslam card is that it was a completely different environment. There was one weekly show and it was filled with the best guys. The Intercontinental title actually meant something and was used to elevate people. Ditto the tag team titles, they were important and gave mid-carders a valuable role. The creation of a second brand and the titles that came with it have diluted everything. Now PPVs are filled with "main events" and the under card guys on both brands are used poorly. There are matches on Raw or Smackdown nowadays which would have been on Sunday Night Heat in the Attitude era. It is much easier to create two good hours of TV than four.

rossie1977

fireball are you comparing an entire era (6 years or thereabouts) to today :eek:

jaykhunter wrote: »

Although US viewers are half of what they were and buyrates are 600,000 lower than 2009, it's amazing how WWE still actually got more money in 2010 than 2009. Those international TV deals, licences and .com really came through for them!

So "half" is too rough on today's profit but fairly bang on for US TV ratings/PPV buyrates. I can only imagine what profits WWF would've gotten if they had the market penetration back then that they have today!

not having to pay the likes of batista, michaels their huge contracts helped too

on your second point, what if ufc were as strong ppv wise back then as they are now....ufc are doing numbers now that wwe during the attitude era could only dream about, brock lesnar is drawing more now than austin, rock, hhh, foley drew combined back then and by a mile. ppv was never wcws strong point even during the goldberg or nwo days, its all what if

going back to merch, i remember buying wrestling shirts in a 7/11 on my first trip to the states in 1998 they were everywhere, today the only place you see wwe gear is at shows

parker kent

drayme wrote: »

???

Which guys? Where?

Triple H and The Rock were mid card in 1998. Steve Austin was mid card in 1997. Mick Foley was mid card for most of his WWF run with occasional runs on top.

parker kent

rossie1977 wrote: »

going back to merch, i remember buying wrestling shirts in a 7/11 on my first trip to the states in 1998 they were everywhere, today the only place you see wwe gear is at shows

That is just wrong. Merchandise is available worldwide now, it was not 10 years ago. Then add in the massive boost that online shopping has made to modern sales figures, merchandise is literally available everywhere.

rossie1977

parker good to see you not pick like the best ppv between 1998-2000 to highlight that was a good card but was not indicitive of that timeperiod at all

why not wrestlemania 15 which had one good match, austin and rock, wrestlemania 16 wasn't much better, the tlc was great and jericho/angle/benoit was good, the rest was pretty much awful

summerslam 2002 with top stars across two different shows and was a great card, match quality wise probably the finest show vince has ever produced

Exclamation Marc

drayme wrote: »

Why did you go on a random rant about titles? When all I have talking about is match quality bell to bell?

You said the midcard was crap, I was pointing out that the midcard ie all the titles and feuds etc not at the top, were very very good and its not all down to match quality, its down to the feud, the promos, the build up etc. You can have the best match in the world but if the build-up is crap, its not amazing, and vice-versa. The midcard 97-99 found a great medium of great feuds and very good matches. These midcard guys and champions(ie midcard titles matches) made up the midcard which you said was "godawful"

drayme wrote: »

Which guys? Where?

Austin, HHH, The Rock, Jericho all midcarders during the "godawful" midcard time period you mentioned. They used their finishers during their midcard residency.

rossie1977 wrote: »

fireball are you comparing an entire era (6 years or thereabouts) to today :eek:

No I'm not, drayme said 97-99 was awful and I'm comparing that couple of years to nowadays because drayme compared the two and said that 97-99 midcard was "godawful".

As i said theres more to a good time period than the matches, its how their built, the quality of promos etc. Hogan v Rock was an awfully mediocre match, but the promos and build made it a spectacle so saying that match A sucked therefore the feud sucked is only telling a part of the story and ignoring the important point that the "feud" or "moment" was incredible.

rossie1977

parker kent wrote: »

That is just wrong. Merchandise is available worldwide now, it was not 10 years ago. Then add in the massive boost that online shopping has made to modern sales figures, merchandise is literally available everywhere.

online sales make up about 3% of wwe total revenues, whatever money wwe are making in online shopping today they are losing it far more in highstreet sales from back then

drayme

Sorry it is moronic to complain that Punk cant use the Pepsi Plunge. On a full time schedule Punks knees would have been shot years ago and by the law of averages someone would have been seriously hurt.

People were shocked at the quality of SS'98 at time. It was almost they chanced on it by luck. It wasnt just a standard PPV at the time.

drayme

FireballPitcher it is borderline useless discussing this with you as you keep misrepresenting what I have clearly and carefully stated. Either reply directly to what I said or dont bother. Life is too short for me to correct you on posts.

Thanks.

parker kent

drayme wrote: »

Sorry it is moronic to complain that Punk cant use the Pepsi Plunge. On a full time schedule Punks knees would have been shot years ago and by the law of averages someone would have been seriously hurt.

People were shocked at the quality of SS'98 at time. It was almost they chanced on it by luck. It wasnt just a standard PPV at the time.

Great comeback. Show me where I say Punk or anybody else should use a very dangerous move regularly on a full time schedule. I have already re-stated that I was using it as an example, I could have used others. My point is that it is not uncommon for wrestlers to be stopped performing certain moves these days.

My Summerslam post is about showing the depth of the card. Which was not just a one night thing, regardless of what you say. Of course Summerslam as the second biggest PPV of the year will naturally be better than other PPVs. But it is not as if it came out of nowhere. The build up to the PPV included several feuds which lasted months and reached a satisfying high point in the Garden.

I get the feeling anyway that if I say black on this thread, you will say white.

Exclamation Marc

drayme wrote: »

FireballPitcher it is borderline useless discussing this with you as you keep misrepresenting what I have clearly and carefully stated. Either reply directly to what I said or dont bother. Life is too short for me to correct you on posts.

Thanks.

You said the midcard in 97-99 was godawful. I presented you facts that showed that the midcard at that time was far stronger than it is now, so much so that the midcard at the time now represent legends of the business. You said I was on a random rant, yet I was illustrating the depth of the midcard at the time, hardly random considering that was the timeperiod you referred to in the first place.

You claimed that midcarders don't get to use the big moves, which I have clearly shown otherwise as the "big moves" nowadays were moves used by midcarders at the time.

I then carried on that a good card and a good midcard is not down to match quality, its down to feud quality. Are you saying that Hogan v Rock should never have happened because the match quality sucked? Because to me and a lot of other people that night was an unrepeatable moment in WWE history, and it was incredible, despite the match being very sub-par.

How I am misrepresenting what you said is beyond me.

As parkerkent has said, whatever I say is black, you will say is white. You're ignoring counterarguments and veering off into other things.

parker kent

rossie1977 wrote: »

parker good to see you not pick like the best ppv between 1998-2000 to highlight that was a good card but was not indicitive of that timeperiod at all

why not wrestlemania 15 which had one good match, austin and rock, wrestlemania 16 wasn't much better, the tlc was great and jericho/angle/benoit was good, the rest was pretty much awful

summerslam 2002 with top stars across two different shows and was a great card, match quality wise probably the finest show vince has ever produced

My post above should reply to most of these points, but again I will state that the post was used to emphasize the names of the wrestlers involved to emphasize the difference in the modern mid card to the mid card of 1998. It is showing the depth to the roster and that should be pretty clear from what I have already written in other posts. That I picked an event with very good matches is irrelevant.

It is not like those guys or feuds appeared from nowhere that night. The years' angles had built to that night. It was the fruits of months of long-term planning.

drayme

parker kent wrote: »

Great comeback. Show me where I say Punk or anybody else should use a very dangerous move regularly on a full time schedule. I have already re-stated that I was using it as an example, I could have used others. My point is that it is not uncommon for wrestlers to be stopped performing certain moves these days.

Sigh:

parker kent wrote: »

You honestly think the standard of wrestling is better than 1998? Are you insane? Watch Cena, Orton etc, they are far more punch/kick oriented than the attitude era. Even look at how piledrivers, knife edged chops and plenty of other moves are now banned and/or used extremely rarely (i.e The Undertaker and HBK are the only people allowed use a pile driver or knife edged chop). Many people have commented on how lower and mid card wrestlers are not allowed use certain moves so as not to over shadow main eventers. This is why CM Punk was banned from using the Pepsi Plunge as it would have made HHH's Pedigree look poor in comparison.

Again there is nothing these days about it. Certain moves are main event finishes. It has been practiced in Wrestling throughout its history as I previously stated.

Also wrestlers were stopped from doing moves largely for two reasons a) neck injuries and b) concussions.

parker kent wrote: »

My Summerslam post is about showing the depth of the card. Which was not just a one night thing, regardless of what you say. Of course Summerslam as the second biggest PPV of the year will naturally be better than other PPVs. But it is not as if it came out of nowhere. The build up to the PPV included several feuds which lasted months and reached a satisfying high point in the Garden.

Read carefully: I am primarily referring to bell to bell match quality.

parker kent wrote: »

I get the feeling anyway that if I say black on this thread, you will say white.

Not true, people are just arguing things separate from I am talking about.

FireballPitcher wrote: »

How I am misrepresenting what you said is beyond me.

I dont doubt that. You claiming that I made these absolute across the board statements which I didnt.

FireballPitcher wrote: »

As parkerkent has said, whatever I say is black, you will say is white. You're ignoring counterarguments and veering off into other things.

Pot kettle here.

Ill will repeat I am mainly talking about the base level standard of workrate in WWE in 2011 being higher than 97-99. Not tag teams, titles or storylines.

Is that clear?

parker kent wrote: »

My post above should reply to most of these points, but again I will state that the post was used to emphasize the names of the wrestlers involved to emphasize the difference in the modern mid card to the mid card of 1998. It is showing the depth to the roster and that should be pretty clear from what I have already written in other posts. That I picked an event with very good matches is irrelevant.

It is relevant as that is what I came into the thread discussing....

You keep going off track.

Exclamation Marc

drayme wrote: »

I dont doubt that. You claiming that I made these absolute across the board statements which I didnt.

drayme wrote: »

Nearly everything outside of the main event scene was god awful between 1997-99.

Fairly across the board.

drayme

I guess you missed the first word "Nearly" there the first time round.....

Anyway now can we move on?

Compare the undercard and the Royal Rumble match itself between the 1999 event and the 2011 event. We have now a far deeper and diverse roster talent wise. Let me re-emphasise I'm not talking about storylines, titles or tag teams here merely the base level standard of workrate.

Additionally, I would much rather watch a random episode of WWE Superstars from the past year than a 1999 Raw.

Exclamation Marc

drayme wrote: »

I guess you missed the first word "Nearly" there the first time round.....

Anyway now can we move on?

Compare the undercard and the Royal Rumble match itself between the 1999 event and the 2011 event. We have now a far deeper and diverse roster talent wise. Let me re-emphasise I'm not talking about storylines, titles or tag teams here merely the base level standard of workrate.

Additionally, I would much rather watch a random episode of WWE Superstars from the past year than a 1999 Raw.

Now you want to compare one event to another?

Christ, this is borderline trolling as you're just ignoring anything anyone says to you and saying something completely unrelated.

drayme

FireballPitcher wrote: »

Now you want to compare one event to another?

Christ, this is borderline trolling as you're just ignoring anything anyone says to you and saying something completely unrelated.

What have I ignored? I came into make a specific point about something it was other people who ignored me who started talking about unrelated things to my post while responding directly to my post and misstating what I said as I previously pointed out.

Why do I need to repeat myself here, FireballPitcher? Why do you feel the need to keep on replying to my posts when you arent replying directly to what I said?

Is my point that hard to understand?

gimmick

Lads, stop the petty sniping and stick to the topic at hand. Agree to disagree. I do not want to have to lock this thread.

parker kent

This is not to continue the petty sniping, but it is a point I feel needs to be re-iterated. The CM Punk example I gave is pretty clearly stating that certain moves are banned for various reasons. I have already clarified this twice, but I may as well make it a hat trick. At no point did I say he should be doing it every week. But having the ability to use it once, perhaps twice a year is very different from using it every week. I am just saying that even this "once a year move" is beyond most wrestlers. This statement applies to every wrestler who would like to use a move that is banned.

When I say "Show me where I say Punk or anybody else should use a very dangerous move regularly on a full time schedule", despite what Drayme say say, that is not the same as saying "This is why CM Punk was banned from using the Pepsi Plunge as it would have made HHH's Pedigree look poor in comparison". A basic grasp of English should make that clear.

I am saying that they have gone through a specific process of eliminating numerous moves from the shows. This leads to matches becoming derivative as they are limited from using certain moves. High fliers are especially crippled by this due to most of them being banned. The CM Punk example could be used for any wrestler that may want to use a certain move on special occasions. They are limited due to moves being banned and cannot

The WWE have definitely changed the in-ring product. Since "bell-to-bell" product is being spoken of, it should be pretty clear that reducing the possible moves reduces the potential of matches. Particularly when wrestlers are now forced to wrestle in largely the same style. This is definitely a reason why the WWE is not as entertaining. You very rarely see something different happen in the ring any more. Of course they have some legitimate reasons for this. Reducing injuries is a noble cause. But there definitely seems to be other reasons for some of the bans.

Vince prefers muscle bound guys and quite often they are incapable of using these moves. So since Cena, Batista etc cannot use them, smaller guys cannot. I am obviously not dumb and understand that the top guys have always been protected. But I feel that the WWF definitely let wrestlers stand out much more between 1997 and 2004. The matches are clearly available which show the massive difference. Look at a Benoit/Angle match from that era(which were quite often upper mid card matches) and compare them to their modern counterparts. Ditto the Edge & Christian/Dudley Boys/Hardy Boyz series. Imagine what Daniel Bryan or CM Punk would be able to do in that era with Jericho, Angle, Benoit etc. There is simply no comparison in terms of in-ring quality.

If WWE were to return to the glory days, improving the in-ring product is a must. Before anybody makes any replies, I am not saying that they must turn every match into a ROH style match nor does it mean turning everything into a 1997-ECW style match. All I'm saying is that an overall improvement in match quality and some differences in styles would be nice.

flahavaj

parker kent wrote: »

This is not to continue the petty sniping, but it is a point I feel needs to be re-iterated. The CM Punk example I gave is pretty clearly stating that certain moves are banned for various reasons. I have already clarified this twice, but I may as well make it a hat trick. At no point did I say he should be doing it every week. But having the ability to use it once, perhaps twice a year is very different from using it every week. I am just saying that even this "once a year move" is beyond most wrestlers. This statement applies to every wrestler who would like to use a move that is banned.

When I say "Show me where I say Punk or anybody else should use a very dangerous move regularly on a full time schedule", despite what Drayme say say, that is not the same as saying "This is why CM Punk was banned from using the Pepsi Plunge as it would have made HHH's Pedigree look poor in comparison". A basic grasp of English should make that clear.

I am saying that they have gone through a specific process of eliminating numerous moves from the shows. This leads to matches becoming derivative as they are limited from using certain moves. High fliers are especially crippled by this due to most of them being banned. The CM Punk example could be used for any wrestler that may want to use a certain move on special occasions. They are limited due to moves being banned and cannot

The WWE have definitely changed the in-ring product. Since "bell-to-bell" product is being spoken of, it should be pretty clear that reducing the possible moves reduces the potential of matches. Particularly when wrestlers are now forced to wrestle in largely the same style. This is definitely a reason why the WWE is not as entertaining. You very rarely see something different happen in the ring any more. Of course they have some legitimate reasons for this. Reducing injuries is a noble cause. But there definitely seems to be other reasons for some of the bans.

Vince prefers muscle bound guys and quite often they are incapable of using these moves. So since Cena, Batista etc cannot use them, smaller guys cannot. I am obviously not dumb and understand that the top guys have always been protected. But I feel that the WWF definitely let wrestlers stand out much more between 1997 and 2004. The matches are clearly available which show the massive difference. Look at a Benoit/Angle match from that era(which were quite often upper mid card matches) and compare them to their modern counterparts. Ditto the Edge & Christian/Dudley Boys/Hardy Boyz series. Imagine what Daniel Bryan or CM Punk would be able to do in that era with Jericho, Angle, Benoit etc. There is simply no comparison in terms of in-ring quality.

If WWE were to return to the glory days, improving the in-ring product is a must. Before anybody makes any replies, I am not saying that they must turn every match into a ROH style match nor does it mean turning everything into a 1997-ECW style match. All I'm saying is that an overall improvement in match quality and some differences in styles would be nice.

The match quality is fine in general. Theres been a huge increae in the workrate of the promotion from the botom of the card up since the Attitude Era. I'd prefer to see a few super workers of the calibre of Guerrero, Benoit or HBK around the main events, but in general, in ring quality is way down the list of problems WWE faces.

parker kent

flahavaj wrote: »

The match quality is fine in general. Theres been a huge increae in the workrate of the promotion from the botom of the card up since the Attitude Era. I'd prefer to see a few super workers of the calibre of Guerrero, Benoit or HBK around the main events, but in general, in ring quality is way down the list of problems WWE faces.

I did do a pretty long list on this thread of what I thought was wrong and all of those are ahead of in-ring quality. Nonetheless, I still think there is a pretty noticeable decrease in quality. I don't think matches are poor now, just overwhelmingly average. I very rarely see one now that makes me sit up and say "wow". There were a handful last year, no more than that.

drayme

You realise Angle is wreck, Benoit is dead and Edge had neck fusion due to that style, right parkerkent?

parker kent wrote: »

I did do a pretty long list on this thread of what I thought was wrong and all of those are ahead of in-ring quality. Nonetheless, I still think there is a pretty noticeable decrease in quality. I don't think matches are poor now, just overwhelmingly average. I very rarely see one now that makes me sit up and say "wow". There were a handful last year, no more than that.

The bottom end of the card is tonnes better though

flahavaj

parker kent wrote: »

I did do a pretty long list on this thread of what I thought was wrong and all of those are ahead of in-ring quality. Nonetheless, I still think there is a pretty noticeable decrease in quality. I don't think matches are poor now, just overwhelmingly average. I very rarely see one now that makes me sit up and say "wow". There were a handful last year, no more than that.

Aye thats fair enough. As I said apart from Danielson., they lack the really really good workers anymore. Mania will be sad without a HBK clinic this year.

parker kent

drayme wrote: »

You realise Angle is wreck, Benoit is dead and Edge had neck fusion due to that style, right parkerkent?

I think I pretty clearly stated that changing the style for health reasons is a great move, so there is no need for that post.

I am very much in favour of improving wrestlers health. However, they have no leeway to have very many matches that stand out any more. Watch Wrestlemania last year, it was horribly average other than the main event. That should not be the case. There should be a handful of events each year with matches that wow. Protect the wrestlers from needless regular abuse by all means, but they should still be allowed have matches that stand out.

The issues of wrestler deaths and injuries is far more complex than their style of matches. Drug abuse, substance abuse, unhealthy lifestyle and many other factors are involved. I am not saying they should be having matches that are pushing it to the limit every week. I have said that implicitly and explicitly throughout this thread. However, major matches at major events should stand out more than they currently do.