LooseCannon25 0 Report post Posted May 7, 2003 Now, i know Attitude and Stone Cold and the whole era was the boom of the wrestling industry and brought WWE back to dominance, but could it be that it's what caused the downfull of wrestling when all is said and done. Attitude was all about shorter matches and longer promos, and i personally didnt like seeing 20 minute in ring promos with 2 minute matches surrounding it. It also marked the end of the jobber squashes in which now two great wrestlers when they fight each other, have already fought several times in a one year period. Even though WWF was bad in 95-96 i still preferred the longer matches and less talk. So, my question is where do you guys stand on this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ViciousFish Report post Posted May 7, 2003 I want the the long matches, short promos no jobber squashes no hoss wrestling. Which if Vince ever saw it he'd think I want long promos, short matches, losts of jobbers and hosses. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest EternallyLazy Report post Posted May 7, 2003 That attitude era was a revolution... it provided us something new which is never a bad thing. But that time is passed... the revolution is over. The problem, is that they haven't realized it or they are refusing to accept it. We often look back at the attitude era as a great time in wrestling history... which I honestly find a little silly. I mean, sure I enjoyed it... but for every Katie Vick you've got Undertaker causing lightening inside of a building, which for some reason, I guess was considered great and fond to look back upon... whatever I guess it reminds me of a Billy Joel song... "the good old days weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Luke Cage Report post Posted May 8, 2003 "Attitude" was just a way for Vince to package the WWF during a time when he only had one maybe two big names. Since he couldn't sell names, he had to push "attitude". Don't believe the hype. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jack Tunney Report post Posted May 8, 2003 Can anyone pinpoint the official end of the attitude era?Sometime in October or November 1999 right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted May 8, 2003 Yeah, around when the "Helmsley-McMahon" Facgime started. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted May 8, 2003 The Attitude Era is over?? ...Somebody better tell Vince. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LooseCannon25 0 Report post Posted May 8, 2003 By the way.....are we still in the Ruthless Agression age or what? Whats the deal? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mole Report post Posted May 8, 2003 That attitude era was a revolution... it provided us something new which is never a bad thing. But that time is passed... the revolution is over. The problem, is that they haven't realized it or they are refusing to accept it. We often look back at the attitude era as a great time in wrestling history... which I honestly find a little silly. I mean, sure I enjoyed it... but for every Katie Vick you've got Undertaker causing lightening inside of a building, which for some reason, I guess was considered great and fond to look back upon... whatever I guess it reminds me of a Billy Joel song... "the good old days weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems" That is exactly what I was going to say. Times are changing, and I think we should go back to the 20 minute match days with shorter promos. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted May 8, 2003 There's a Ruthless Agression era? I must have missed the memo. What exactly defines the Ruthless Agression era? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted May 8, 2003 John Cena: RUTHLESS AGGRESSION! That was pretty much the era Rudo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LooseCannon25 0 Report post Posted May 8, 2003 There's a Ruthless Agression era? I must have missed the memo. What exactly defines the Ruthless Agression era? I have no freakin idea........i just remember it was thrown around A LOT last year Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chazz 0 Report post Posted May 8, 2003 I personally think The Attitude Era Died In November 2000 when Stephanie McMahon was officially placed In charge of The Creative Team. What at absolute joke! What credentials does she have that would place her In that position,other than she Is a McMahon? Do you realize that under her watch, The Creative Team have blown sure-fire angles like The WCW Invasion, and The return of The NWO, just to name a few. For all the shit that Vince Russo has endured from The 'Net over the years, I'd take him back In The WWE anyday than that bunch of talentless, yes-men lackey's that Vince and Stephanie like to surround themselves with. Sorry. End of Rant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted May 8, 2003 Ok, I remember that phrase, concept, whatever... Usually era's mark/become defined by a change... The WWE hasn't changed since the Attitude Era. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LooseCannon25 0 Report post Posted May 8, 2003 I personally think The Attitude Era Died In November 2000 when Stephanie McMahon was officially placed In charge of The Creative Team. What at absolute joke! What credentials does she have that would place her In that position,other than she Is a McMahon? Do you realize that under her watch, The Creative Team have blown sure-fire angles like The WCW Invasion, and The return of The NWO, just to name a few. For all the shit that Vince Russo has endured from The 'Net over the years, I'd take him back In The WWE anyday than that bunch of talentless, yes-men lackey's that Vince and Stephanie like to surround themselves with. Sorry. End of Rant. Did't Steph even give a creative meeting a few days or weeks back basically telling the writers to keep their mouths shut and go along with what they're given? It proves that all they want is yes men Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted May 8, 2003 The choice between Steph and Russo is very easy... *takes remote* *turns off tv* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest wildpegasus Report post Posted May 8, 2003 I think the Attitude era was a double edged sword with one side being an awful lot sharper. One good thing about the era was that it got a lot more people watching. When this happens hopefully you'll hook some of the new people for life and than reap the monetary benifits. However the problem was a lot of these fans were just attitude/shock me viewers and not true fans. They were just simply bandwagon jumpers. When you combine this with the fact that it's very obvious that there are now a lot less kids watching wrestling now this is bad. There's a major part of your audience gone. By the time they're alduts you've missed a lot of opportunites to snatch their money. I'm a long time fan and I hated the Attitude era so I may be byist but in saying that I think it demonstrates a good point in that the WWF simply spat on their loyal fan base that followed them through their lean years which kept them alive. I know there were people who simply stopped watching the WWF in the attitude era because they hated how wrestling was being treated. Let's not forget that the era has brought us the impossable to figure out backstage camera and the "secret hidden camera" rules. This alone makes the era a complete waste. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted May 8, 2003 WildPegusus... ...Well said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LooseCannon25 0 Report post Posted May 8, 2003 Exactly, I'll take the old school feuds which were built with time and made sense back anyday. I miss the SPORT of wrestling. WWE doesnt give us the sport....it gives us a ENTERTAINMENT SHOW, and while many casual fans enjoy the stupid sexist, t&A, shockTV, and dumb storylines I would have to imagine just as many if not more enjoy the sport of it. The competitive spirit with 2 guys going out there for 10-20 telling astory in the ring and busting their asses. I think its time to turn a new leaf and go back to WRESTLING first and show second because, while the attitude era pulled in good ratings and buyrates, it's pretty evident by the numbers that the interest is gone now with that crap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Trivia247 Report post Posted May 8, 2003 Hell I truly miss the age of the Jobbers 80's-90's it was better when you have lesser shows to have your name talent fight locals and indi wrestlers to show off their stuff in front of the audiences instead of damaging each others career by throwing name superstars against each other whom aren't actively feuding. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LooseCannon25 0 Report post Posted May 8, 2003 With the way it is now a superstar has to lose every match. You know what gets on my damn nerves more than anything that was introduced in the Attitude era..........the damn "MOMENTS AGO" and "EARLIER TONIGHT" replay clips. When something happens, and you go to commercial...i don't need you to show me what just happened 2 minutes ago when you come back on the air. I also don't need you to replay the clip again 30 minutes later. Maybe its just me but that shit annoys the hell out of me. IT's like they think we have amnesia or something Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest OnlyMe Report post Posted May 8, 2003 It's so that people who are watching, but missed that segment can see what happened. If someone is channel surfing, and they find WWE is on, they can find out what everyone is referring to. But yeah, it's irritating as hell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Goodear Report post Posted May 8, 2003 Exactly, I'll take the old school feuds which were built with time and made sense back anyday. I miss the SPORT of wrestling. WWE doesnt give us the sport....it gives us a ENTERTAINMENT SHOW. What era was that? Because theWWF was never, ever about providing you with 20 minutes matches on television on a weekly basis. The matches were always 2-5 minutes on average with the possible exception of the Saturday Night Main Event which was like a every three months sort of deal. WWF has always been entertainment and character first and athletic display second. I can't imagine that anyone can expect them to change now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Austin3164life Report post Posted May 8, 2003 We are still in the attitude era. Vince doesn't realize this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
