If I Can Be Serious For A Moment 11.12.09: A Trip Through My Mind
Posted by Chris Lansdell on 11.12.2009
Lacking one solid topic, I take you on a train-of-thought trip through some wrestling ideas in my head. All aboard!
Hey yo. Welcome back to If I Could Be Serious for a Moment, your weekly dose of intelligent wrestling discourse with me, Chris Lansdell. Looks like wrestling and social media was a topic in which a lot of you have taken an interest. I neglected to mention the recent "Hire Shannon Moore" Twitter campaign aimed at TNA, which was remiss of me. It just goes to show the power of social media I guess. Anyway, on to this week!
BANNER!
Bathing in the Stream of Thought
One of the drawbacks to writing a column for almost a year and restricting yourself to writing serious columns is that you occasionally run out of subject matter. I find myself in such a position right now, where I literally cannot come up with any one topic that would fill a column. It's also been an insanely busy week and I'm still in pain from the gigantic knot in my back, so we're going to play a fun game of "As it pops into my head". Starting with something that might just make some people unhappy.
EXTREME! OVERRATED! WRRRRRESTLING!
"Bring back the old ECW!" is a common cry heard from the smart corner of the IWC town hall. Whether it's in relation to a story about Paul Heyman or a lament about the resurrection of what is now called ECW, people miss the one-time upstart promotion. I've noticed though that nostalgia tends to make people remember things too fondly, and ECW is not exempt. Now don't get me wrong, it had its moments, its stars and its place in wrestling history. In the grand scheme of things, it wasn't really that important OR that good. ECW was a combination (in today's terms) of RoH and CZW for style, was probably slightly bigger than RoH in terms of following, and made the a few more stars. In fact, the parallels between the two companies are many, and should be quite disturbing to the ROH faithful. Who, by and large, were also ECW fans. Funny that...
Both companies are accepted almost universally as the number 3 promotion in North America. Both are known for putting on different style matches from the Big Two. Both had their early histories mired in controversy (the Rob Feinstein incident and Shane Douglas trashing the NWA belt) but emerged from it stronger. Unfortunately, both were raided for their top talent by the other two companies, both over-reached themselves with PPV and TV deals (and I think that will become evident for RoH shortly, although they should be able to weather it better) and neither one is or was considered a threat to the major companies in professional wrestling.
Like Ring of Honor, ECW has put on some matches that are light-years ahead of the WWE and TNA efforts we see on a weekly basis. Where ECW failed is in realising that an ultraviolent (at the time) product would never meet with mainstream approval, and thus was doomed to mediocrity at best. As a company they innovated, they built stars, they wowed people who appreciated wrestling...but they also had their fair share of rubbish. People like New Jack, a cult favourite in ECW, were only popular because they used weapons to hurt people and would let others do ridiculous things to them. The same could be said for The Sandman, who owes his popularity almost entirely to a Singapore cane, a can of beer, an iconic metal song and a willingness to get brutally violated for money.
Interesting how a lot of the fans in that clip would never have seen the original ECW. I digress. For all the platitudes spouted by ECW fans about"understanding what ECW stood for", that fact is that it was a wrestling promotion that failed due to bad business sense. Even without that bad business sense, it would have folded long before now because it wasn't able to adapt. Good memories yes. The saviour of professional wrestling today and the only wrestling that was ever any good? I think not. It's natural when indulging in nostalgia to do so through rose-tinted lenses, to only remember the good and to elevate that good to great in our minds. This is what happens with ECW. For every Lance Storm vs Jerry Lynn technical masterclass, there is a Balls Mahoney vs Sandman plunderfest that has nothing to recommend it other than increasingly powerful blows with amusing paraphernalia.
Bad Attitude
While we're talking about things that were over-rated and are remembered too fondly, let's take a look at the famed "Attitude Era". Back when WCW and it's nWo storyline was kicking WWF's ass with monotonous regularity, the Connecticut brain trust decided to take a page out of ECW's book (wow, linking topics!) and skate a little closer to the edge of the good ice. The resulting shift in emphasis gave us beer-swilling Stone Cold, DX, The Rock and a whole bunch of questionable angles that resurrected the WWF and brought about the "Golden Age of pro wrestling television". What gets lost in all the euphoria over Austin vs McMahon, Austin vs Rock and the rest of the intense rivalries and storylines is that, really, the wrestling sucked. You could never get away with all the run-ins, non-finishes and main event schmozzes from that era in today's wrestling environment. I own quite a few tapes of shows from that time, and really you can turn almost all of them off before the main event, because you know how it will end and you know what will happen in the match. Austin gets beaten down, mostly due to a screwjob, Austin comes back, Austin hits the Stunner and wins and drinks beer. Much like Hogan, much like Cena. Yes, I just said it: Austin was no different to Cena. Really, how often did Austin lose clean? If the internet had been as ubiquitous then as it is now, do you honestly think Austin would have been almost universally cheered? The only real difference is that Austin's insurmountable odds were put in place by management, not by huge monster opponents.
Then of course there were all the factions. Everyone remembers DX, and in most cases those are fond memories. A lot of people will even remember the Nation, and will point out what a great boon it was for everyone involved in it. Who can forget this all-time classic moment?
What people overlook is that those were only two of the factions running "wild" in WWF at the time. Disciples of Apocalypse, Los Boricuas, the Ministry, the Corporation, later the Hart Foundation and Right to Censor...and matches involving members of these factions would almost inevitably end in gang beatdowns. Much has been made of the lack of wrestling on the average episode of Impact (an issue which has been almost totally resolved), but Raw in those times was little better.
I will say here that the Attitude Era was essential in the survival of WWE and quite possibly the wrestling industry as a whole. It attracted boatloads of new fans, some of whom are still around now, and gave us some of the most memorable and replayed moments in wrestling history. Unfortunately, it's likely that it caused some deep damage to the business that will take a long time to repair, if it even can be repaired. People like The Rock and Austin were so huge and so popular that their departure from wrestling left a massive void that not only hasn't been filled, but by its very existence makes it almost impossible TO fill. Any wrestler who gets close to those stratospheric levels is invariably compared to Austin and/or Rock, normally far too early in their careers, and when they inevitably fall short of the required charisma levels to match either of those two gentlemen, they are branded as lesser men. Superstars we have, but our search for the next megastar crossover is so earnest and really, so pointless that we are destroying any chance of it ever succeeding. There will never be another Jordan, another Gretzky, another Marino...or another Austin. Times have changed, the industry has changed, and as fans we need to realise that and accept what we have. Attitude saved the industry, but it's gone and should be remembered for what it was: the right product for the right time. Would you buy a Walkman now? As awesome as they were 10 years ago, they just wouldn't be worth it today.
The PG stands for Pathetic Garbage, right?
You may have noticed that WWE programming is now rated PG. You may also hold the opinion that this change to a more family-friendly broadcast is the reason that said programming has dropped in quality. And on that final count, you'd be wrong.
A show does not have to be inappropriate for children in order to be enjoyable. You don't need bloodshed, vulgarity, Playboy cover girls or any of the other recent WWE hallmarks in order to have a quality program. That's an artifact of the Attitude era when you had to shock to be successful. By the same token, eschewing these practices does not automatically relegate your product to the sewer system. The WWE product has been on the decline for years, and very rarely has shown any signs of improvement. The rating slapped on it (which is largely arbitrary anyway, especially for a live show like Raw) has absolutely no bearing on the quality of what we see. All it does is prevent the writers from using vulgarity as a crutch for cheap laughs or entertainment. That they have been unable to deliver any other type of entertainment with any consistency is not the fault of the rating change.
The fact is that WWE is in business to make money. Right now the only safe and consistent way to do that with their business model is to aim at young kids. No matter how tight times get, parents HATE to say no to their kids. If little Johnny absolutely has to have that new John Cena shirt, then his parents will move heaven and earth to get it for him. As long as this remains the case, why would they change anything?
That's not to say the product is good right now. Readers of 2 Raw, 2 Furious will know where I stand on Raw right now: they just haven't done enough to ensure a continuous flow of top contenders. SmackDown hasn't done much better. We need a reason to care about the people they want us to care about, and we need to want to see the faces win and the heels lose. We need to understand why and how each person is fighting, what and who they are and how they intend to entertain us. By the same token one has but to look at TNA to see that a more mature rating is not an automatic berth on the success train. Bottom line: anything can be good, but it's easier to be bad.
Rest...in...Peace
The Undertaker is 44 years old (or 47, depending on which online source you believe), and will be 45 (or 48) just before WrestleMania XXVI. Although that's hardly old in today's wrestling world (HBK is only a few months younger, for example), he is not in the best of shape. The larger you are, the more things are likely to go wrong with your body. Taker has had bad knees for a while and rumours persist that during his time off, he had a hip (or both hips) replaced. He looks noticeably older and slower since his return. There has been talk that he's looking to call it quits in the near future, possibly as soon as this April. But how to write him out?
When you think about it, 'Taker has been locked in coffins, set on fire, buried alive, had his urn melted to bling, had a car crashed into him and even "ascended to be with the creatures of the night", leading to an extended absence each time. With all that history, how are you ever going to convince fans that this time is for real? Part of what makes Undertaker's character so enduring is the mystique behind it, caused by Mark Calaway following kayfabe as far as possible with it. Any farewell address or Hall of Fame induction would destroy a lot of that mystique and MIGHT make fans believe that it was finally over, but would he or the writers be willing to throw away almost 20 years of character development? Would that damage the history of the man? I'd like to think not, but you can never tell in this industry.
The bigger issue would be the loss of the man himself. For all the jokes and snipes about backstage politics and dating Michelle McCool, the Dead Man is a locker room leader and very influential both in terms of who gets pushed and in helping the young newcomers get acclimatized and improve. A program with the Undertaker is normally a one-way trip to the top of the card, even if you lose said program. After Hulk Hogan, he's likely to be one of the first names you hear from a former fan's mouth when they ask who's still involved in wrestling. I'd consider him the best big man ever. How do you replace that? You don't, quite simply. You can't. The day that the Undertaker hangs up the trench coat, WWE will lose some fans. There's a reason that the man's character has lasted so long with only one major shift, and that is that it sells. With virtually no effort he can become a heel again, and he is always a threat to win a title. His departure may well be inevitable, but WWE had better have a plan for that day because I doubt they have fully grasped the effect it can and probably will have.
OK gang I'm out of here. Thanks to Jeremy Thomas for his help with this article, and of course to you all for reading. I'm taking next week off but I'll be back the week after that, hopefully with some fresh topics.
ECW during the 90's was over-rated. Now is exactly what it should be. it is a national breeding ground run by the WWE. ECW only gets cred years ago was due to it being the underdog and people just hating WWF (big surprise).
Posted By: Joey Fat one (Guest) on November 11, 2009 at 11:08 PM
dixie responding to the twitter campaign is a joke. so any no talent indy spot monkey can petition for a roster spot and a boss will answer.
Posted By: nice opening (Guest) on November 11, 2009 at 11:09 PM
There is a reason Undertaker has been around for 20 years. His gimmick can afford him to take breaks every so often. Without them being written into the storylines, I honestly believe Taker would have only lasted 10 years tops!
Posted By: Propaghandi (Guest) on November 11, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Every time I see that Lance Storm picture, I think his 'top' is actually painted on his chest.
Posted By: ?>?>? (Guest) on November 11, 2009 at 11:14 PM
I will say this until the day I die:
The only reason people fondly rememeber the Attitude Era is because that is the timeframe most of the IWC got into the program.
Anyone who started watching in the 80's will look back in that timeframe and love that.
Kids/adults that just started watching a few years ago in 20 years will say that the 2000's was the best ever.
It is more emotional attachment than the actual quality of the show.
Posted By: True (Guest) on November 11, 2009 at 11:18 PM
You know what is really funny, I was watching some of Raw from 97-98 and it was rated PG...
Posted By: Kirk (Guest) on November 11, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Frankly I don't care if it's for the kids, I don't care if it's for adults or whoever it's for, I am dying to see hornswoggle fired. His skits and everything he has done have become so jaded and tiresome. Every time I see him come out I have to change the channel cause I've had enough. It's not funny he's beating Chavo, it's not funny he's dressed as Jack Osbourne, nor are any of his conversations with Cena or DX or anyone.
Perhaps I am just more of the old school fan and would prefer more wrestling and pushing wrestlers who can actually become main event stars instead of seeing a tadpole splash every week or random grunting for a cheap laugh.
Or maybe I'm coming to a realization I hate midgets O_o........
Posted By: Brett (Guest) on November 11, 2009 at 11:33 PM
"There will never be...another Gretzky..."
Hellooooo, youngest Captain to hold the Stanley Cup here...
Posted By: Sidney Crosby (Guest) on November 11, 2009 at 11:46 PM
i agree with everything u said i went to ecw heatwave 2000 when they came to LA and it was great but when i seen it again on dvd it sucked ecw always had that first time shock value everytime but no replay value most of the time it was just there but i will say this no matter how overrated the sandman was and he was his entrance was one of the best just watching that clip had me there's nothing better then that moment and u will never see it again and might not even come close
Posted By: Guest#6254 (Guest) on November 11, 2009 at 11:51 PM
i gotta agree wit the statement that ECW was A mix of ROH & CZW y bring back the old ECW i enjoyd but they made a legacy in philly n it shoudl stay that way. CZW is this genrations ECW has it made stars out anybody Thats for u to decide many ppl in WWE ROH AND TNA stepped through CZW Go to Czw Website n see the list AJ STYLES,BALLS MAHONEY, HOMICIDE, MCMG, HERNANDEZ THE LIST GOES ON CZW has wat Ecw didn't have n that was good buisness they may not have a tv deal or have mainstream publicty but they found a way to stay in buisness for 10 years i'd say they're more violent than ECW but they also so have a good roster of technical wrestlers who neva have deathmatches so basically the NEW ECW IS ok the way it is ECW of old is history let the future of this sport continue to thrive n not live in the past
Posted By: jamille 5150 (Guest) on November 11, 2009 at 11:52 PM
I get where your coming from when you talk about Rock, Austin and the Attitude Era. But it sort of sounds like a cop out to me. Your basically telling people to accept mediocrity. I'm sorry, but the likes of Cena, Orton and Batista are not just bad when compared to Rock/Austin. They just suck period.
I still follow wrestling on sites like this, but I hardly ever watch it now. I need those larger than life, charismatic figures for me to accept pro wrestling. Because in my opinion, unless you have top notch performers, wrestling is pretty fucking absurd and stupid. I can forget about that when I am being entertained, but when you have a bunch of amateurs out there, like they do now, it immediatley loses it's appeal.
Posted By: Guest#7471 (Guest) on November 11, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Be careful, Lansdell...your use of logic and objective observation are bound to get you labled as a mark or sheep who simply takes what Vince McMahon gives him.
Posted By: MasterShake (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Nice Article I agree with everthing that was written.
Posted By: Guest#5680 (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 12:31 AM
"A program with the Undertaker is normally a one-way trip to the top of the card, even if you lose said program."
This was a good article, but I beg to differ with you on this point. I think the case of CM Punk would provide evidence to the contrary. Punk absolutely owned Smackdown throughout the Summer, but after two very one-sided PPV bouts against the dead man he has lost all of his momentum and barely even has a role left to play on the show.
The Breaking Point match was a travesty. Punk received a bare minimum of offense and didn't even get to last ten straight minutes. The very least the Undertaker could have done was sell the Anaconda Device for a minute or so before they went into the screwy ending, but he couldn't even give Punk that; he made it clear that he would have escaped the second the hold was applied, hence the instant match stoppage. This might have been forgivable if he'd replicated the epic nature of his encounter with Edge in the Hell in the Cell match, but that was out of the question too. Once more, The Undertaker cleanly needed to dominate Punk and beat him in a definitively clean fashion.
I understand that maybe it wasn't entirely the Taker's fault that these matches went down like they did. Maybe they were just booked in such a fashion to reassert the dominance of the character. But if the Undertaker really is such a locker room leader, he would have been fully aware of how much of Punk's character was being sacrificed to build his own, and he should have balanced the offense enough so that his opponent wasn't completely buried. But that really isn't in the Undertaker's style.
Unless he's fighting another big man (like Brock Lesnar or The Great Kahli)Taker is seldom willing to allow his opponents to look credible against him. He was generous against Randy Orton at Wrestlemania XXI, but that was the last time Orton looked like he had any chance of cleanly defeating the Taker. All of Edge's victories involved the entire Rated-Rmy. It's not just that Taker doesn't occasionally lose, but he almost never puts people over in doing so.
It's too bad Wrestlemania XXV wasn't Taker's retirement performance. That would have been such a classy moment to end his career with. Now he looks terrible and can't work for more than ten minutes, which is insulting to the people who pay money to see ppv main events that actually look like ppv main events.
Posted By: Lance O' Leary (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 12:40 AM
what happened to Biker Taker? the character was completely breaking kayfabe for the undertaker character. Taker goes away and suddenly comes back as a biker? are there bikers in hell? if anything, that destroyed undead taker's mystique. returning to undead taker through the cartoonish way they did to convert biker taker back to dead taker did him no favors. people know that taker is taking time off after a fantastic match because taker is hurting. he looks weathered. even children understand that old people need to take a break once in a while. he didn't have to be written out of storylines through anything elaborate after his classic with HBK at wrestlemania. he and hbk just took a couple months off and nobody really noticed. There's no real mystique left in the character per se, the mystique is in the person Mark Calloway and how long his career has lasted at the top of the card so consistently for the past 15 years. sure he rarely loses, but he is respected by pretty much every fanbase that have watched pro-wrestling from the 80s era onwards.
Posted By: Shio (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 01:47 AM
Frankly I don't care if it's for the kids, I don't care if it's for adults or whoever it's for, I am dying to see hornswoggle fired. His skits and everything he has done have become so jaded and tiresome. Every time I see him come out I have to change the channel cause I've had enough. It's not funny he's beating Chavo, it's not funny he's dressed as Jack Osbourne, nor are any of his conversations with Cena or DX or anyone.
Perhaps I am just more of the old school fan and would prefer more wrestling and pushing wrestlers who can actually become main event stars instead of seeing a tadpole splash every week or random grunting for a cheap laugh.
Or maybe I'm coming to a realization I hate midgets O_o........
Posted By: Brett (Guest) on November 11, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Must be pretty slow with that remote because it seems to me you know how all those segments went down.....
Posted By: Bunched Panties (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 02:03 AM
I disagree with ECW being overrated, Sandman was a joke, RVD and Jerry Lynn were classic matches, Eddie vs Dean, Tanaka vs Awesome, I don't thin it's fair that due to politics you labeled it overrated. They introduced Lucha Libre to the Amercian public and brought in Rey mysterio and you want to tell me that it was overrated?
Posted By: mrmr (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 01:59 AM
Good article, the brevity increased focus too.
For parts of it, I wasn't sure if you were talking ECW or porn, but either way its true that there is only so much value in hardcore.
If I remember right, Heyman went to the plunder-style matches much more after his best wrestlers were signed away. And he started with the lucha and puro style wresting in North America before Bishoff. So he was influential in both Attitude and one of the highlights of WCW - the cruiserweights.
Spot on again with the Undertaker. Few of the giants could bring it all - ringwork and mic. Admittedly he didn't become good in the ring until later in his career, but you have to wonder how Nash would be seen if he had done the same.
None of the current giants - in terms of height and/or girth (hi Mark Henry)- can replace his presence in the ring and in the locker room. Say what you will, but you don't hear about baby oil incidents with rookies.
Kane lost any mystique he had after the Katie Vick storyline. He is up there in age too. Big Show only works well when motivated and gets caught up in petty stuff like the thing with Khali. Knox seemingly can't get over that hump. Mark Henry has never been a real main eventer. None has shown they can be a good draw. This is even before you get to the effects of mystique.
In the locker room, who has seniority next? Kane? Jericho? Rey? I could see Chris being a good judge of talent, but I wonder if management has trust in him. It will be interesting to see.
Posted By: Guest#9873 (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 01:37 AM
Good read.
I got into this thing at the end of the 80s (heck, I remember a time when Marty Jannetty was my favourite wrestler as a kid), so for me, the Attitude Era, whilst it had its moments, wasn't that big a deal.
Fast forwarding to today, I think I'd much rather have Chavo The Loser (I know the IWC hates what's become of Chavo, but he's been given a role and excells in it) and Santino Confronts the Guest Host over Mae Young Gives Birth to a Hand or Vince McMahon: Higher Power any day of the week.
Speaking of over-rated, personally just don't get what the thing is with The Undertaker. He wouldn't be so bad if all his promos didn't sound exactly the same:
"I walk on the darkside of hell, and when we have our wrestling match, I will take your soul and you will rest in peace."
Yeah, OK, whatever.
Posted By: Jack Conner (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 02:08 AM
When you compare Cena to Austin you come off as very childish and/or feminine.
Posted By: MBD (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 02:15 AM
I can actually remember a time when I thought that Batista would be the next big thing, remember the buildup between him and HHH while they were in Evolution?
probably one of the best faction storylines I can remember in quite awhile
Posted By: SmokaJoka (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 02:26 AM
" Really, how often did Austin lose clean? If the internet had been as ubiquitous then as it is now, do you honestly think Austin would have been almost universally cheered? The only real difference is that Austin's insurmountable odds were put in place by management, not by huge monster opponents."
Firstly, Austin was the secong biggest star in wrestling history. Why would they job him out cleanly at all?
Secondly, the difference between Austin and Hogan/Cena is that...Austin lost. He dropped the title twice in 1998, so the fans could watch him get revenge and chase the gold, instead of having a 4 year/10 month reign that got staler and staler and staler.
And thirdly, whilst that was the only real difference, at least there was a real difference which made it (at the time) very exciting and fresh.
I don't mean to trash your article, but that paragraph was a bunch of arse.
Posted By: Del Boy (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 03:15 AM
It's about time someone criticized ECW for, besides introducing lucha, being nothing but soap opera storyline that would be criticized today. (Who's RAven's son?)
Also, the fact that ECW Fans cheer for the Sandman while telling he Cena he can't wrestle shows how nostalgic they are.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 03:35 AM
" With virtually no effort he can become a heel again"
He buried his manager in concrete at GAB 2004 and didn't turn heel off of that. If attempted murder doesn't turn you heel, 'virtually no effort' isn't going to slice it either.
The only way to turn him heel would be to have him end his own streak at Wrestlemania and celebrate by hosting a white slave auction whilst dousing puppies in gasoline, setting them alight and throwing them at diseased orphans.
Posted By: Thor (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 03:36 AM
Mc Cool and Calaway are just friends. (Taker is still married to Sara)
Posted By: Jin Kazama (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Thank you for the point about the Attitude Era. A lot of the TV matches were run-in-filled clusterf's. What I do like about the current product is we do get some solid 10-20 matches across the three shows (esp. on SD) every week. And as another poster alluded to, I'd rather have Santino bugging the guest host than a Mae Young or "Sweet Jesus, she has a *****" any week. The WWE certainly has some issues, but I think it gets a far worse rap than it deserves, and that goes for its wrestlers too (Cena, Batista; Big Dave's heel turn is certainly filled with potential). As someone who also grew up with the Attitude Era, I'm not blind to the pros and cons of both then and now. And nothing will ever be the AE, but I still enjoy the current product today with its solid in-ring workrate (wrestling on a wrestling TV show? Are you listening, TNA?) and copious young talent I greatly enjoy like JoMo, Miz, Kofi, Bourne, Ziggler, DiBiase, Rhodes, and Swagger.
Posted By: Guest#1570 (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 05:19 AM
ECW was just great. ECW One Night Stand proved it by competeing with Wrestlemania for best PPV of the year. ECW wasin't just wrestling, it was fun! And thats what people always forget when they go back and start discecting the product.
Posted By: OnemessStep (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 05:20 AM
411mania...I am ashamed to even hear you people talk about Undertaker being overrated or misunderstood. The guy has earned his many stripes in the business. He's legendary!
Best way to write him out is to set up a scene after his epic last match with Chris Jericho and have him say he's going back permanently to Death Valley before a bellow of smoke covers and he disappears in it.
Posted By: DMiller (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 05:28 AM
"There will never be...another Gretzky..."
Hellooooo, youngest Captain to hold the Stanley Cup here...
Posted By: Sidney Crosby (Guest) on November 11, 2009 at 11:46 PM
_____________________________
The absurdity of this comment beats even the rubbish of Julian Bond. Crosby isn't even the best player on his own team, and you're comparing him to the man who is the first, second, and third best player of all time.
Posted By: MasterShake (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 06:24 AM
More revisionist BS, the reason the Attitude era was great wasn't for one particular reason, it wasn't just the matches, or the storyline or the characters, it was everything together.
You'll never have the depth of talent that existed at that point in wrestling ever again, because of the death of WCW and the territories.
Also, calling something overrated is the mark of a true twat. It means "people like this thing more than I do and I don't like it, so they're wrong, boo hoo."
Posted By: Bruno (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 10:49 AM
1) Bikers in hell - Hell's Angels
2) Cena looks lame when he wrestles, he got automatucally promoted to the top without forewarning and paying his dues and the character only attarcts a section of the fanbase. Evryone loved Stone Cold (some wouldn't admit it), he entertained, he was witty, he did the things we all wanted to do and although he couldn't be considered a 'technical wrestler', he was belieavable in the ring. He brought real intensity - Cena looks completely contrived.
3)Why do people use BLOCK CAPITALS for emphasis? It is really difficult to read and it is bloody annoying. I am far more liley do ignore a comment with block capitals, lower case is much more attractive and easier to read.
Posted By: yoyo (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 08:11 AM
Undertaker lost all mystique with the American Badass gimmick. That killed everything.
Posted By: Foolio (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Hey Lance. go back up to the undetaker paragraph and reread it. Undertaker is the Locker room leader, and Chipmunk Punk stepped to him. Down ya go dude. Punk is just sort of O.K. as far as personality and drawing power. He might have ruled Smackdown all summer , but who cares. Wrestling is a very what have you done for me lately kind of business and Mr. Punk made a fool out of Himself to the Deadman. He might as well have told Triple H to suck his balls. Mr Punk is on self destruct mode for trying tu put himself over on the Taker.. But hey how much further down the card can he go. He's not Rob Van Dam or Jamie Noble. Im sure he will be rewarded with a nice long run with the Diva's championship or the cruiserweight title
Posted By: Old School Fan (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 01:50 PM
I agree on ECW being overrated. I just got Cyberslam 99 in my Netflix and it was terrible. All of the matches sucked and it was like they were rehashing their own material. I do disagree with the idea they couldn't have become a main stream promotion. In 99 when the wrestling boom happened I don't think their product was more violent than WWE and I believe casual fans at least heard of them. I think they could have made it but it would only be for 1 or 2 years.
And their was no real wrestling in the Attitude Era. I have DVDs and Tapes from that time and I don't know how in the hell they drew such high ratings and their live crowd was always dead until Austin came out. The wrestling didn't improve until Russo went to WCW.
Posted By: JBass24 (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 09:29 AM
Undertaker is the Andre the Giant of our time. He's larger than life, literally and physically. And if John Cena is supposed to be the Hulk hogan of our time... The Wrestlemania match is inevitable.
Posted By: Guest#3896 (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 09:30 AM
Gee, negative much?
I agree that ECW was somewhat overrated. As I go back and watch the matches, some of them fall flat.
However, there were some abolsutely amazing moments, and I feel you're grossly underestimating its impact on the business. If it wasn't for ECW, the WWE not only wouldn't have a good majority of the stars they've built up, but their whole formula for success as well.
You neglect to mention that beneath all the hardcore hoopla, ECW popularized lucha libre and modern technical wrestling, ala Dean Malenko and the wonderful RVD/Lynn series.
Yeah, the Attitude Era was overrated. It wasn't necessarily a BETTER product, just more entertaining. People tuned in to see Austin flip the bird and blood. Anything in the mid-card or below was ghastly at times.
It's not that violnce makes it more thrilling, but the PG era is killing wrestling imo because it's watering down the product and making the characters very bland and one-dimensional. Instead of Russo-rific run-ins and swerves, I'd like more developed storylines and longer matches (with better quality as well).
Posted By: Guest#4368 (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 01:55 PM
This article lost credibility with a Dan Marino reference!
Posted By: Mark Duper (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 10:12 AM
It's not a rating thing that makes the WWE suck nowadays. It's a lack of competition.
When the WWE lost stars to WCW, they had to create new stars (or nick them from an upcoming promotion like ECW)
When they were getting trounced in the ratings, they had to up their game.
It's a completely lazy company at the moment. They can shift a shed load of t-shirts to kids who get daddy to buy it for them at Walmart, but kids don't have disposable income or credit cards to order PPV's.
Would you rather sell half a million shirts at 20 dollars or 1 million PPVs at 50, plus a shit load of merchandise off the back of it?
If they actually put together a decent, compelling product, the latter would be what the WWE was achieving.
I don't mind PG. I don't let my son watch TNA because I don't think it's suitable (he is only 6), but don't object to whats on Raw.
However, I am not going to shell out for a poor quality PPV for him and waste my money. He's a huge John Cena fan and even he didn't want to see the last PPV with a one hour Iron Match after ALL the other matches Cena and Orton had. There was no intrigue for even a six year old. That is a very, very sad indictment of the WWE product.
I only hope that TNA with Hogan is a success as competition is only a good thing for WWE.
In short, WWE hasn't been shit since the inception of going PG. They have been absolute bobbins since WCW went tits up. End of.
Posted By: TheTheoryofTimeandSpace (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 02:27 PM
A feud with Undertaker is normally a one-way ticket to the top of the card? What are you basing that on? Out of all the people Undertaker has feuded with they all either A) were already main eventers, B) went nowhere or C) were clearly on the way up long before 'Taker tried to job them out. Oh wait, here's an exception. Let's look at CM Punk. He's treated like a joke at Breaking Point, he's killed at Hell in a Cell and he's an afterthought at Bragging Rights. Now what is he doing? He's feuding with a ref. Punk got himself massively over during the feud with Jeff. Then he transitions to 'Taker and is in the same (or more likely, a worse)position.
I keep hearing 'Taker apologists say that he helps guys up the card but I've yet to hear any tangible names. Who did 'Taker help? Name one person who was a midcard act, feuded with 'Taker and THEN became huge. That's what you say he does. Give an example, please.
---
The Attitude Era was good. It's a tad overrated but the matches weren't the bread and butter. As opposed to recent stuff the skits in the Attitude Era were typically cutting edge and/or genuinely funny. That's a far cry from Cena making poop jokes.
This column is pretty weak. It's a lot of posturing with little substance. You keep telling us what you believe to be the real truth behind situations but never do I actually see you back up your claims. It's a lot of "this is the way it is because I say so." That's not very compelling.
Posted By: Ron Mexico (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 02:18 PM
Taker almost ALWAYS puts people over when beating them. Punk was an exception. I was disappointed in that, but that's what it was.
Taker put Edge over so much that is was silly that Edge was still playing a chikenshit heel for most of the program. If he was able to do THAT much damage to the Undertaker, I had trouble buying that he was supposed to be scared of anyone anymore.
Posted By: Sev (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 01:01 PM
Finally someone says that the Attitude era was overrated. Good. The storylines were a lot of fun, and I for one enjoyed them too but nonetheless the wrestling sucked in general. Compare it with a year, say 2005 and you have a lot better matches in the latter rather than the former...
Posted By: Guest#9167 (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 01:03 PM
"The only way to turn him heel would be to have him end his own streak at Wrestlemania and celebrate by hosting a white slave auction whilst dousing puppies in gasoline, setting them alight and throwing them at diseased orphans."
Why would we get upset at someone trying to off diseased orphans? They are already sick and stand no chance. I'd be much more offended if he tried to off the healthy orphans. Even then, I mean, they're orphans. Nobody loves orphans. It's part of what makes them them.
Posted By: YoYoMa (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 11:10 AM
The original ECW was fantastic. I was fortunate enough to start watching it in 1994. I have quite a bit of room to talk here and I will say that the new ECW is in fact very good and quite in the spirit of the old ECW (minus the hardcore matches).
It is a chance for older legends to get noticed again and for younger guys to earn a shot they normally wouldn't get.
As far as WWE PG goes... the real issue is that there is nothing that matters in the WWE. Wins, Losses, rules, alliances, rivalries, capping off fueds, ppvs being "must buys".
You watch today and you cant even get behind a new superstar because you are just waiting for them to get buried. Which is then followed up by the next Orton stare down or Cena promo shout fest to begin.
WWE sucks right now because they WANT to suck. There isnt one unique CONSISTENT character in the promotion sans Jericho, and even he is becoming redundant.
If Kofi actually wins this feud with Orton and moves up the ladder I will personally give Vince a blow job... well maybe just a hand job. lol
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Great read!
I still don't get the big fuss about the Atitude Era.. I mean I've watched since the days of Diesel and Razor. For people who think it's "worst" now really could defend a naked Mideon over a midget that takes up 5 min of Raw to the crowd's amusement? The WWE is about making money and like it or not, that kids like that midget. And the attendance has picked up recently.
I think ECW and ROH/CZW have a lot in common too. All of them use a "stunt work" style that, eventually, everyone will get numb too. How many times can you see some guy do a bazillion backflips and land on his neck before you realize it isn't really exciting? Or worst, that same said guy dies?
People rag on how "boring" the WWE matches are, but what do they expect? Their matches are designed to tell a story in the ring and sell a character while trying to minimize injury. What good is getting behind someone if they get injured? Okay, Batista is an exception, but at least he makes money for the company. Okay, not all of their matches are story heavy or good, but the chances of a wrestler getting hurt is only has high as the botch rate in most cases... But the Diva matches aren't really that long. lol
Posted By: Eboney (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 11:37 AM
"Much like Hogan, much like Cena. Yes, I just said it: Austin was no different to Cena. Really, how often did Austin lose clean? If the internet had been as ubiquitous then as it is now, do you honestly think Austin would have been almost universally cheered?"
Yes because Steve Austin was actually entertaining and worked great angles with equally entertaining people.
Cena is dull and keeps working the same tired angles with the same boring people.
You sir have tried and failed.
Posted By: Guest#3187 (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Thanks for the lecture, DAD. Now if you don't mind, I'll go right back to watching History of ECW, Legacy of ECW, and my Attitude era torrents of Raw and Nitro. Why? Because IT'S FUN TO WATCH. Because it entertains me way more than the current product. Because I like it. PERIOD.
And look, I didn't even need a long-winded, circular argument that ends up disagreeing with myself to explain it (cough).
Posted By: The REAL MP (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 12:04 PM
I don't think ECW was overrated. People always bring up the bad business decisions, but that had little to do with the actual product.
It really started because the older wrestling fans were sick of the big two promotions. Sure, HBK and Hart were awesome, but we had to sit through so much bullshit to get to them that we got sick of it. And do I need to say anything more than Dungeon of Doom?
ECW's trash was just better than WCW or WWF's trash. Maybe their best wasn't as good as WWF's best, but at least their worst wasn't embarrassing.
And Paul E should be given a lot of credit for taking a guy like Sandman, who couldn't work a match, was barely passable at promos and looked like (and was) the guy at the end of the bar, and making it work. Did ECW have inferior talent? Most of the time, yes (the only exception being when they had Benoit, Malenko and Guerrero). But somehow he made ECW into something more than the sum of its parts.
The reason ECW isn't forgotten and is so fondly remembered is because of the feeling you got at an ECW show. Not only were you right there no matter where you were in the arena, but we felt like ECW was ours. When a worker was in ECW he was one of our boys, when the company succeeded, we felt like WE did it.
When ECW fans criticize WWE and TNA these days, usually the real reason is that they cannot compare to the feeling you got at an ECW show, regardless of the quality of the actual show. Having never been to an ROH show I can't say from experience, but I hear you get the same feeling at those shows.
The feeling we got from those shows made us more willing to forgive the wresters' shortcomings. Who cares if Tommy can't cut a promo, his matches are awesome. Who cares if Raven can't work, his promos are great. Who cares if Taz's matches are No-sell-Taz-plex-repeat, he's badass. Its not that we didn't notice these flaws, we just forgave them.
We don't get that same feeling from WWE abd TNA so we aren't as forgiving of their flaws. Is it right? You bet your ass, as a fan thats my prerogative. You can choose to dismiss my opinion, but I pay as much for my ticket as you do, so my opinion is just as valid.
Overrated? No. Just like back in the day, its overrated by the people who love it (Me), underrated by the people who hate it and pretty accurately rated by those who are indifferent as an influential, important, but ultimately small-time promotion that had its moments.
Oh yeah, and I recognized a lot of people in that ONS clip from New York/Philly area ECW shows, so that was kind of a cheap shot. And wrong.
Posted By: black hole of charisma (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 12:29 PM
The thing about ECW is that it was what it was. An alternative to the big two. Many older fans had gotten tired of the Goody Two Shoes babyfaces and lame Saturday Morning Cartoon style heels so they turned to ECW. Of course Sandman probably isn't the best worker in the building. Hell he's probably not even the best worker in the stands. But what he does have is he is entertaining.
Your average fan does not care about work rate and they certainly couldn't care less about "who paid what dues". They care about being entertained. That's what all wrestling is all about no matter what three or four letters are in the company's name.
Posted By: Guest#3039 (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 03:14 PM
Mark Callaway deserves a lot of credit for the Undertaker character, especially how he took a character with no ring skill, mic skills or charisma(of which he only gained one of those things in 96 thanks to Foley) and turned it into one of the most successful gimmicks ever
Posted By: Guest#5478 (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 12:35 PM
The only difference sbetween Cena and Austin is that Austin drew larger TV ratings, larger PPV ratings, larger houses, and sold more merchandise. His popularity also was the driving force behind the WWE going from near-bankruptcy to a publicly traded company on the NYSE. In addition, he worked four star plus matches with Hart, Micheals,Taker, Foley, HHH, Angle, and the Rock. Yeah, but besides that him and Cena are practically identical.
Posted By: Chris (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 02:29 PM
Every good thing is overrated. The Godfather is overrated. The Beatles are overrated. Shakespear is overrated. Do you know why? Because lots of people love it and when someone who doesn't love it hears this praise they say it's overrated. Being overrated or not really has nothing to do with the quality of a product. I call Shelton Benjamin the most overrated underrated superstar. That doesn't mean i think he isn't good.
ECW had a lot of classic wrestling moments that will be remembered for all time. Ditto WWF Attitude era. For Sandman/Raven, Dreamer/Raven, Austin/Hart, these should be remembered fondly
Posted By: the danger stranger (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 03:48 PM
'"There will never be...another Gretzky..."
Hellooooo, youngest Captain to hold the Stanley Cup here...'
Gretzky did what Crosby did in an era when the taint of american management and rules had pussified the game. back when Gretzky played, getting cross checked into the bleachers was, if called, known as a delay of game. now, a player can barely knock someone else into the boards without a ref calling him for 2.
so, to sum if Sidney had played in the Gretzky era, he would be just another small kid who gets knocked around and doesn't do a whole lot.
oh, and i completely agree that both the old ECW and Attitude Eras were overrated. as much as everyone wants to blame PG, Cena or HHH for how things suck now, they are almost blameless compared to Attitude and its killing of kayfabe.
Posted By: Darth Mortis (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 04:10 PM
Oh Old School Fan, you guys that swear by every piece of gossip you read provide me with so much amusement. Hypothetically, even if Punk "stepped" to the Undertaker, that doesn't excuse the fact that Taker turned in two extremely sub-par ppv performances (I don't think there's any dispute to the fact that responsibility for the suckiness of Breaking Point and HiaC falls squarely on the dead man's shoulders). The fans pay money to see good matches, not to watch Undertaker execute his "wrestler's court" sentences in the ring. If these are the liberties that Undertaker feels he is entitled to as the locker room leader, then it really is time for the Fakerbaker to pass the torch to someone who can separate their self from their gimmick. But in all likely hood that's probably just a rumor that someone made up to satisfy a desperate need to try and make sense of the WWE sacrificing their hottest heel to give the Undertaker a useless vanity run.
The Undertaker was cool for a long time, but now he is just a fucking dork, and I don't use that profanity gratuitously. He's a joke. He's a man in his mid-forties who has really long stringy hair which dangles from a drastically receded hairline, wears a leather dress, has a terrible fake tan, and talks like a death-obsessed goth teen. He is such a fucking dork.
The only reason his matches are good is because his opponents are willing to fall all over themselves to make them good. He had a MOTY candidate at Wrestlemania against Shawn Michaels? It's convenient how people forget that Undertaker almost ruined the entire night by nearly killing himself on a botched plancha. He seriously could have died because he overestimated his abilities. Now he hobbles around the ring. Watch him run when he does his big boot out of the Snake Eyes spot, it's embarrassing. Yet credible opponents like Punk are charged with haplessly selling all his offense and laying down in eight minutes because marks (Old School Fan) and seven-year-olds won't admit that the Taker is a shell of his old self.
I don't mind Taker sticking around if his limitations were acknowledged, but there is no place for a monster that is incapable of being a monster. It's annoying being asked to suspend that much disbelief, and it's a waste of any opponent he faces.
Going back to Punk's hypothetical offense against against the Undertaker. If it's so important that the champ dresses well to represent the title in public, shouldn't it also be important that the champ performs well to represent the title in the ring? The Undertaker is no longer physically able to do so. I don't even want to watch Smackdown until his reign is over and I'll know that I'm not going to be let down by his pathetic defenses.
Posted By: Lance O' Leary (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 05:40 PM
Writing The Undertaker out of WWE is going to be one of the toughest things to do in years. So much so that they might be better off just taking the easier way out - having him just disappear after a loss as he often does, and just not return again. Fans will still be tuning in wondering when he will return, but hopefully even when they realise he more than likely isn't coming back they'll still have enough love for the show that they'll stick with it, if only on the off-chance that they're wrong. Meanwhile, Undertaker is barely mentioned again on television until in a few months or even years when he's confident that he won't be stepping back into the ring, and they slowly make mention of him again but not in a sense that it leads anyone to believe he might return (e.g. "So many names have won the belt - Batista, Mysterio, the Great Undertaker" etc).
Posted By: Bimmy (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 05:57 PM
I have noticed that in the past few month, it has became cool to hate on the old ECW.
Posted By: Wonga (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 06:24 PM
I have been watching wrestling since the early 70's (which makes me old) and each era/decade had it's good moments but for pure entertainment the attitude era is the best by a very big margin.
Posted By: Lucky (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 07:11 PM
" In the grand scheme of things, it wasn't really that important OR that good"
While "that good" is subjective, to downplay the significance of ECW on professional wrestling simply to try and make a point about history being viewed through rose colored glasses is irresponsible, if not ignorant. I am no ECW homer, just a fan of the industry and an amateur wrestling historian. To say ECW wasn't that important is akin to saying World Class or Mid-South weren't that important. Look at wrestling today, their is no place for wrestlers to come up and learn on the way to WWE. ROH is not to WWE what ECW was to WWF and WCW. Paul Heyman and ECW took guys who had potential and got them ready for the big-time. ROH is almost the exact opposite, as anyone who comes from ROH inevitably spends a near eternity in developmental before being brought up. Tazz, the Dudleys, Lita, Jazz, RVD, Rhyno, etc didn't go to the Funkin' Dojo, Memphis, HWA or OVW upon signing with the WWF, they went from ECW right to Raw or Smackdown and PPV. That is the real legacy of ECW. It helping to shape the attitude era is just a bonus. I'm guessing you weren't watching much wrestling between 1991 and 1996, or were too young to realize how stale and terrible the big 2 had gotten and that it was the ECW style, attitude and product (a little credit can go to SMW, as well) that was really the catalyst for the industry moving out of the eighties and briefly catching up with the rest of the entertainment world, before squandering it and falling into the position its in now. If not for ECW, we would have had at least a couple more years of wrestling dentists, plumbers, race car drivers, hockey players, masked puerto rican ninjas, nuclear weapons, men on missions, fake royal canadian mounted police, tekno teams, accountants, monks, humpbacks, aerobics instructors, hog farmers, and half man half cows.
"What people overlook is that those were only two of the factions running "wild" in WWF at the time. Disciples of Apocalypse, Los Boricuas, the Ministry, the Corporation, later the Hart Foundation and Right to Censor..."
Yeah, because DX, the Ministry and the Corporation came BEFORE the Hart Foundation. My memory must be screwed up, since, as I recall, both DX and the Corporation (via evil Mr. McMahon, its leader) both began because of the Hart Foundation. And since Undertaker was still a babyface fighting Shawn Michaels and later Kane in the fall of 1997/early 1998 and didn't turn into Satan until the fall of 1998, I'm confused as how the Hart Foundation came later than the Minisrty. Unless they were formed at Biff's Pleasure palace, then it might make sense.
Posted By: Guest#0138 (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 07:52 PM
ECW overrated? You're an idiot.
Posted By: El Guesto. (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 07:48 PM
I can't help but think that alot of these comments about ECW being nothing but overrated, ultra violent garbage are coming from people who have only watched WWE issued ECW dvds (i.e. Bloodsport) or whose first exposure to ECW was One Night Stand. I taped Hardcore TV every week and found the mix of technical wrestling, hardcore violence, more adult oriented storylines, current music and innovative characters to be very compelling tv, that you didn't want to miss, whereas if you missed Raw or Nitro (or WCW Saturday night before Nitro)you could pick up the next week and not even realize you missed anything.
Posted By: jeff (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 08:00 PM
You're seriously the best writer on this site, Lansdell (no offense, Sforcina).
Posted By: Anonymous Smart Mark (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 08:04 PM
"Hey Lance. go back up to the undetaker paragraph and reread it. Undertaker is the Locker room leader, and Chipmunk Punk stepped to him. Down ya go dude. Punk is just sort of O.K. as far as personality and drawing power. He might have ruled Smackdown all summer , but who cares. Wrestling is a very what have you done for me lately kind of business and Mr. Punk made a fool out of Himself to the Deadman. He might as well have told Triple H to suck his balls. Mr Punk is on self destruct mode for trying tu put himself over on the Taker.. But hey how much further down the card can he go. He's not Rob Van Dam or Jamie Noble. Im sure he will be rewarded with a nice long run with the Diva's championship or the cruiserweight title
Posted By: Old School Fan (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 01:50 PM"
All Punk did was ask an honest question about the policy. If Undertaker was such a great locker room leader he'd have addressed Punk's concern and brought it up with someone. Regardless of his seniority, Undertaker is still just a wrestler on the payroll. Who the hell is he to try to enforce policies?
Posted By: His Bubbliness (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 08:34 PM
Cena's actually lost clean more often than Austin did, although maybe not as much losing in total. The main difference is Stone Cold was a highly successful babyface. Cena is not. He's really a category of his own at this point.
Posted By: Sev (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 08:23 PM
Late 90's Attitude wrestling has two predominant factors over modern wrestling and that is promo cutting and in-ring psychology. It will be a cold day in hell before I see Cena cut a promo even close to the same class as what Austin or Rock were able to pull on the mike; Austin was a badass because he convinced everyone he was a tough son of a bitch in front of the camera, people like John Cena because he looks like a friendly soldier but he isn't very convincing in terms of a 'hard as nails' persona or the 'reliable face'. Cena is more like Hogan than anything with that static face character that appeals to the kids and a static in ring move set that is relatively low risk given the sets of other superstars; both outcomes are predictable but Austin's outcomes were always more versatile and original while many of today's angles are just replays of yesteryear. If you want to make comparisons just compare Wrestlemania 13's I Quit match to Cena and Orton's recent one at Breaking Point; the development of the psychology of those matches are staggering opposites because Cena and Orton's was intentionally self generated while with Hart and Austin it was given in response to the creativity of their match. Not to say their aren't potentials to the throne of the Attitude greats like Randy Orton to name one, but static faces like John Cena and Kofi Kingston are given legs up because Vince has a crazy theory that he can maintain an expanded viewership pool not because of their ability to induce originality into their angles. But i guess its always as it goes out with old in with the new, instead of JR's build ups we will be hearing the word 'Vintage' thrown loosely and a guy named Matt Striker who identifies MVP's abilities with ethnic catch phrases. Alas I digress.
Posted By: TKOslam (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Even though most of the wrestling during the attitude era was poor. The main difference between then and now is basically the entertainment/storylines were much better. The lack of tag team/cruiserweight wrestling now is a major gap in the product. Austin was booked a lot like Cena is now, the key difference is Austin had personality throughout his career, Cena hasnt got most of his which got him over in the first place. Cena's only way to get over now is lame jokes directed to kids. Austin was a MUCH better wrestler as well, very rarely putting on bad matches. You cant say the same thing about Cena, its rare that he actually has a good match.
Posted By: Ryan Haseldine (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 09:48 PM
"1) Bikers in hell - Hell's Angels
2) Cena looks lame when he wrestles, he got automatucally promoted to the top without forewarning and paying his dues and the character only attarcts a section of the fanbase. Evryone loved Stone Cold (some wouldn't admit it), he entertained, he was witty, he did the things we all wanted to do and although he couldn't be considered a 'technical wrestler', he was belieavable in the ring. He brought real intensity - Cena looks completely contrived.
3)Why do people use BLOCK CAPITALS for emphasis? It is really difficult to read and it is bloody annoying. I am far more liley do ignore a comment with block capitals, lower case is much more attractive and easier to read.
Posted By: yoyo (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 08:11 AM"
*SIGH* (how's that for emphasis). There's always no-nothings chiming in.
Cena got pushed to the top because he had charisma, cut great promos, his raps were off the cuff and got the crowd involved, he developed a fanbase as a bad guy and blew up when he turned good, and he pretty much had the look of a superstar. Period.
You don't have to like him now, and you can talk nonsense about how he sucks in the ring even though he's had great matches with almost everyone (yeah, he couldn't pull a good match out of Big Show, but made Umaga a main event level player and got two watchable matches out of Great Khali. Nuff said.)
The IWC always feels the need to change the facts to fit their agendas.
Posted By: Brad B (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 10:57 PM
*SIGH* (how's that for emphasis). There's always no-nothings chiming in.
Cena got pushed to the top because he had charisma, cut great promos, his raps were off the cuff and got the crowd involved, he developed a fanbase as a bad guy and blew up when he turned good, and he pretty much had the look of a superstar. Period.
You don't have to like him now, and you can talk nonsense about how he sucks in the ring even though he's had great matches with almost everyone (yeah, he couldn't pull a good match out of Big Show, but made Umaga a main event level player and got two watchable matches out of Great Khali. Nuff said.)
The IWC always feels the need to change the facts to fit their agendas.
Posted By: Brad B (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 10:57 PM
------------------
Good idea with the smart reamrk at the top of your post - sets people on the defensive straight away!
I never said that Cena hadn't any good matches so I don;t know where you get off listing his best ones. Yes, Cena cut very good promos - but his likeability is very limited and his promos aren't the same. The funny Cena, doesn't go with the superman booking. He was then pushed too early and therefore had a lot of people against him.
The IWC clearly has it in for him yes, and they are OTT, but claiming a moral high ground by going against the grain doesn't make you right.
Posted By: yo-yo (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 05:37 AM
I can only speak for me personally, but my fondness for both ECW and the Attitude Era tie into circumstances surrounding those. I don't just look back on footage from that time and see the wrestling, I see my high school buddies I watched it all with. I see the guys who would gather around on Tuesday morning to discuss everything that happened the night before. I see staying up late to catch the forbidden fruit that was Hardcore TV. It's a case of rose-colored glasses, yes, but they're my rose-colored glasses, dammit!
For many others it's likely a case of just getting into wrestling and that being their first big memory. I still look back fondly on my introduction during the New Generation era even if, aside from Bret and Shawn bringing the awesome, it made today's product look nearly Shakespearean.
But I've long called attention to their overratedessness. Back in the 2004 time period my easy rebuttal to calls for reverting to the Attitudinal stuff would be to call attention to how much better (and I do mean much better) the actual in-ring content was.
Posted By: neverAcquiesce (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 05:45 PM
Rest...in...Peace
