Is WWE better or worse than it was 5 years ago?

[Guest Dazed]

As a quick look up for you, Raw for July 19th, 1999.

 

So how does WWE compare to how it was back in 1999? There's been a lot of changes - the roster split being one of the biggest, as well as the buyout of WCW. Are the shows better than they were, worse, or are they the same, just with different things to complain about?

[Guest Trivia247]

I think 99 around this time was still in the rise of the return to wrestling's popularity in 98 (which I site stemming from WM14) WWF fans were coming back as well as new younger fans now came in and of course their parents bought and paid for merchandise PPVs crap etc etc etc. differences of course of then and now are well a number.

 

1999 the WWF still had competition that they were needing to be on parr with (Though by that time they were the superior product vs WCW and far beyond what ECW was producing especially during their TV deal they had on TNN We got Pop!

 

The WWF was able to push the limits without to much backlash, angles came and went that were risky but pulled it off anyway. Mark Henry's interlude with a Transvestite the "Symbol" and Symbol Burnings by the Undertaker, accultism. kidnappings druggings, and other such villiany... and of course the Blue Meanie as the Raw Boy (shivers)

 

 

But the here and now the WWE is the only true game in town, TNA is on the Cusp of being on Cable tv without having to pay them per week for two hours. And of course many fly by night indi's attempting to be competition came and went from the public scene, XWF, XPW, MECW, WWA etc. the WWE has no real drive to better themselves to keep up or dominate because they are all thats left. Making it seem more lethargic shows more common that exciting wrestling. Less segments actually having to do with wrestling and more segments for shit not even involved in the ring, Diva Search, XFL, various Movie ventures, promoting books. People like McMahon so determined to be seen as a Main stream entertainer that he is disregarding his Roots as a 2nd generation Wrestling Promoter and therefore causing his business to slump more and more. Sure they have made improvements here and there. But you can see the glaring improvements when the norm is Abysmal. Now why do we continue to watch? I have been a fan since 1986. Quite literally I Remember angles such as Jake Roberts vs Steamboat with the DDT on the concrete, or Savage Steamboat. I remember seeing Savage nailing Tito with the Foreign object stuffed in his tights to Pin him (Boy to a non wrestler's point of view that might sound dirty) What I know is that wrestling will always be with us and it has its ups and downs. Especially the WWF. I don't think I was the only one who took a hiatus from the WWF in the mid 90's watching very few if any events. Probably totally Missed all of 1997.

 

I think if the guys who are running the show turns their heads back to wrestling then the product will improve. Keep in mind the Talent of management the WWE have capable of making the product better... These aren't morons (Maybe the current writers creative directors are) But Im talking of course of Vince McMahon for starters, Linda (for the Corporate Promotional business end) Jim Cornette, Paul Fricken Heyman, hell even Eric Bischoff had his moments, here and there, when they weren't ignored by Ted Turner during a Tirade against Catholics about Ash Wednesday or some such nonsense. Basically you have the minds of those who ran or were heavily involved with.. WWF, NWA, WCW, and ECW ..... jesus put them to work damn it! I don't need to see Lawler humping the leg of some Diva wannabe to a chorous of Boo's for Five damn segments of Raw when Half the Damn Roster isn't even USED!

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

It is much better than the horrible 1999 which was one of the worst years in the history of the company creativily, but much worse than the recovery in 2000 which was the best year since 1992.

 

1999 featured such gems as the HHH push of doom, 8 months before he finally got over at Royal Rumble 2000, Billy Gunn as KOTR, Vince McMahon as Royal Rumble winner, Vince McMahon as WWF Champion, Vince McMahon as the Higher Power, Vince McMahon main eventing no less than 4 PPVs (Royal Rumble, SVDM, KOTR, Armageddon), Owen Hart's death, Chyna as IC Champ and going over Jeff Jarrett & Chris Jericho, Kennel in a Cell, Big Bossman in a World Title feud over Big Show's dead dad, This is Your Life Rock!, nonsensical turns for no reason (Mark Henry and Big Show turned heel/face about 30 times combined that year), Shane McMahon gets his taste for in the ring action, Mae Young & Moolah return for the first time, the Undertaker crucifying victims, the Ministry in general with such classic workers as Viscera & Mideon, the worst Royal Rumble ever, the worst Wrestlemania ever, the worst King of the Ring this side of Mabel, a terrible Summerslam, and the worst Survivor Series ever to top it off. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

How anybody can say that 1999 was any good at all from any standpoint but financial, I will never understand.

[Guest JoeyStyles]

Wrestling wise 1999 wasn't a good year for the WWF, it was entertaining due to the Rock and Mick but HHH's first and second title reign bored me as much as he did this year. In 2004 WWE has Benoit,Eddie,HBK and a host of others carrying the wrestling part of the show but the "entertainment" part is lacking big time with the stale Cena and the mindnumbing promos from HHH.

[JasonX 0]

As a quick look up for you, Raw for July 19th, 1999.

 

So how does WWE compare to how it was back in 1999?  There's been a lot of changes - the roster split being one of the biggest, as well as the buyout of WCW.  Are the shows better than they were, worse, or are they the same, just with different things to complain about?

This question is flawed do to the fact that despite all of the shit of 1999, the year was still watchable in the sense that the company was still doing good and riding a wave of popularity that allowed them to hide their flaws in favor of their strengths.

 

A better question for this thread would be "Is this WWE better off today than it was in 2002/2003?".

[Guest Dazed]

I don't see how the question is flawed. The idea was to discuss things that have improved (match length, for example), and things that are worse (authority figures. say)

[Detox 0]

I think there was more depth in 99' they didnt have to build shows around a couple of central figures they could establish better mid-card feuds and those were the days where you had The Rock,Undertaker,Foley,Austin and Triple H guiding the show id take that over the main event scene now any second. Also I for one enjoyed the program that The Rock and Billy Gunn had which seems to have been started on this RAW they had a good match at SS thanks for the trip down memory lane

[Promoter 0]

1999 was a blur of a year. I have been watching since 1986 basically and I could at least remember things off my mind easily, but when it comes to 1999 I can't remember a whole lot. It could also be that I don't want to remember. I really believe the financial gains in 1999 were a big illusion for why things were hot. 1998 was the real year that put the wwe back on the map because it was actually a good year.

 

Let's see....the ratings were sky high in 1999 and had the highest ratings.

Okay, one raw had to deal with the death of Owen Hart in a ring. Obviously, that would attract plenty of people just curious and concerned about the incident. How many people stayed around after that to contribute to the high ratings who knows.

 

1999 saw the wwf title change how many times? Compare the title changes on free tv of that year compared to all the other years prior and I can see how fans were staying tuned. The same with the tag and I-C titles. This kept the new fans glued and old fans glued who never saw rapid title changes as much. This helped the ratings, but hurt the credibility of the titles that was built up up until that point.

 

1999 saw the big buy-rate for WrestleMania 15 that hasn't been touched since(I still don't know the real numbers for Mania XX and if it competes). Okay, we had the main event of Rock and Austin. Austin was peaking and Rock was gaining a lot of steam. The storyline was playing off the hotly debated Montreal Screwjob of 1997 where Vince and his son screwed Austin out of his title and had Rock become the chosen champ. Terrific storyline with the two hottest stars in the business. The res of the card was pure filler crap.

 

The problem with comparing 2004 with 1999 is that the wwe was just plain hot coming off their big comeback year in 1999. New fans were in the fold and old lost fans had returned. 2004 does not have that working in its favour. It's coming off the heels of losing Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan, The Rock, the lost heat of heel Vince Mcmahon circa 1997-98, no competition, and a watered down brand split. It also has to do with guys like Cena and Orton not rising and improving as fast as guys like Triple H, Rock, and Mankind were during their push to the top in 1999. Those guys matured into their positions much easier with a hot audience following the wwe. There was spark that helped the wwe in 1999 that doesn't appear in today's environment. I think for better or worse this year is better workrate wise sometimes(except when it gets bad it gets real bad lik smackdown), but the star power is lacking as well as a developed midcard which Russo is known for giving everyone at least something to do. When things sucked in 1999 there was still a strong magnetism flowing through the stop stars like Rock and Austin that made people watch. Even the goofy Minsitry of Darkness still had some unique appeal to it. The wwe doesn't have anyone like that now. Creatively, this year is better when you take into account stuff like Benoit's Rumble story over Vince Mcmahon winning. Eddie Guerrero overcoming the monster Brock Lesnar to win the title. Goldberg/Brock was interesting to me although their match sucked, but who could not like that MSG crowd? Benoit's title win was vastly superior to Rock/Austin although again their star appeal was stronger with a better long term storyline. The anticipation for Taker at WM XX. The Angle heel turn was great. Then you got stuff like JBL as champ which voids my whole argument

[Guest Loss]

The shows are better now, but less fun than they were in 1999. At least in 1999, if a wrestler proved he could get over, he was pushed to the top.

[Papacita 0]

I think that weekly TV in 99 was a little better than it is now. The shows were a lot more unpredictable and even the weaker shows were more entertaining. There was also a little more variety in the shows, as Russo would put more focus on the midcard. Today, if the ME angle isn't working, the whole show is dragged down, but back then, you really wouldn't have that problem, because the undercard was so well-developed that you could almost always find something on the show that entertained you.

 

Wrestling-wise, though, today is much better. 99 also loses points because of bad booking and the fact that all the belts were devalued under Russo's run. Things are a lot more structured today.

[The Mandarin 0]

The wrestling is obviously way better now (longer matches, better offense, selling, etc.), and the storylines are more realistic. The characters aren't as gripping though because the main event scene lacks charisma (except for Eddie, but he's on that other show).

 

2001 was arguably the best year since the birth of the attitude era. It had the best in ring action, pay-per-views, comedy and very good characters. It also had its share of good storylines even though some failed (a good portion of the Invasion).

 

So I'd definitely say this year has been better than it was five years ago, but not six years ago (Austin era), seven years ago (Hart Foundation), or three years ago. It's around the level it was in 2000, I guess.

[iliketurtles 0]

The wrestling is better now, but the intrest for me is just gone out the window. At least I remember a few things about 1999...2004 is basically Wrestlemania 20 and that's about it.

[Guest Dumb Fuck]

Shows were more fun for me in '99... but that's probably due to me being older now, and just not enjoying wrestling as much.

 

I will say that '99 had certain advantages... like someone said, Russo made the midcarders interesting to watch. Plus, the top level of stars were better... Rock, Austin (his routine wasn't completely stale at the time), HHH (before he became the boring "I am the Game! And I win all the time, so you will listen to me babble for 20 minutes!"), and Taker, pre-Biker era. Also, although this show doesn't really showcase it, there were actually tag teams in this era.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

The wrestling is obviously way better now (longer matches, better offense, selling, etc.), and the storylines are more realistic. The characters aren't as gripping though because the main event scene lacks charisma (except for Eddie, but he's on that other show).

 

2001 was arguably the best year since the birth of the attitude era. It had the best in ring action, pay-per-views, comedy and very good characters. It also had its share of good storylines even though some failed (a good portion of the Invasion).

 

So I'd definitely say this year has been better than it was five years ago, but not six years ago (Austin era), seven years ago (Hart Foundation), or three years ago. It's around the level it was in 2000, I guess.

Change "good portion" to "all of" pertaining to the Invasion and you're a little more accurate.

[geniusMoment 0]

I liked 1999 until Wrestlemania 15, after that I hated it. The reasons have already been mentioned, the huge HHH heel push, the higher power, the corporate ministry, Nicole Bass, Sables ego post Playboy, Chyna sucking the life out of the mid-card, Billy Gunn getting a push, The Big Show dragging down every segment he was involved in, Mick being out and then never coming back the same following double knee surgery, Shane and Vince wrestling all the time, Steph and Linda both getting involved, the stupid Shane-Test feud with Steph getting into a relationship with Test, Steve Blackman getting a push, X-Pac getting stale with Kane, Lawler and Ross both getting stale.

Since I was an ECW fan, none of these things bothered me too much, as I could still just watch ECW, but still it was dissapointing. I actually really enjoyed the WWF from October of 1996-March of 1999.

[strummer 0]

It is much better than the horrible 1999 which was one of the worst years in the history of the company creativily, but much worse than the recovery in 2000 which was the best year since 1992.

 

1999 featured such gems as the HHH push of doom, 8 months before he finally got over at Royal Rumble 2000, Billy Gunn as KOTR, Vince McMahon as Royal Rumble winner, Vince McMahon as WWF Champion, Vince McMahon as the Higher Power, Vince McMahon main eventing no less than 4 PPVs (Royal Rumble, SVDM, KOTR, Armageddon), Owen Hart's death, Chyna as IC Champ and going over Jeff Jarrett & Chris Jericho, Kennel in a Cell, Big Bossman in a World Title feud over Big Show's dead dad, This is Your Life Rock!, nonsensical turns for no reason (Mark Henry and Big Show turned heel/face about 30 times combined that year), Shane McMahon gets his taste for in the ring action, Mae Young & Moolah return for the first time, the Undertaker crucifying victims, the Ministry in general with such classic workers as Viscera & Mideon, the worst Royal Rumble ever, the worst Wrestlemania ever, the worst King of the Ring this side of Mabel, a terrible Summerslam, and the worst Survivor Series ever to top it off. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

How anybody can say that 1999 was any good at all from any standpoint but financial, I will never understand.

1992 was the worst year in WWF Financial history, but I'm pretty sure you were talking about quality wise, Kahran. I would say 2004 is slightly better. I will admit at the begining of 99, the Crash TV format was fresh and innovative and appealing to me, but around June and July of 99, it got old and predictable. WWF 99 from after Fully Loaded to Survivor Series was really just a blur, as people turned and turned back and there was barely any wrestling AT ALL on Raw. I remember a Raw where there was 12 minutes of wrestling total on a 2 hour show. The wrestling is much better today and the angles are getting more a slow build. The focus is always on the main events now,while the midcard got more focus back then. yeah, I'll go with 2004 as slightly better.

[Guest bigm350]

I think 2004 is alot better, especially wrestling wise. 1999 was the year of the 2 minute main event with mostly horrible workers to boot. The only thing that 1999 has over 2004 is it was more popular with the public in 99.

[Guest JoeyStyles]

Let me put it to you guys this way at least in 1999 the WWF didn't have a retard as their #1 babyface and Bradshaw as a world champion.

[Enigma 0]

Say what you will about Vince Russo, but he always tried to make the mid-carders and the low-carders look just as important to the fans as the main-eventers. Shit, DX was one of the hottest angles ever in wrestling in 1998 and part of 1999, and all of them were mid-carders (at the time).

 

Basically, that sums up my view on why I liked 1998-1999 compared to now. Sure, the actual wrestling mostly blew ass, but WWE isn't a wrestling company anymore really; they make their bank on entertainment. In the Attitude Era, there was a lot less fodder on the shows and barely any throw-away stuff compared to now. Every person had their part on the show and their characters, who they were, and what they were about were clearly distinguished, no matter how goofy it may have been. At least it was there.

[Zack Malibu 0]

I agree with the fact that under Russo the shows were very entertaining due to him putting forth some effort into creating personas for everyone from the opening match on up.

 

Chyna winning the IC Title wasn't that bad of an angle, but I didn't agree with taking a bonafide brand new star like Jericho and sticking him in the midcard angle. I understand "paying your dues" and what not, but a lot of the early Jericho stories (Curtis Hughes as bodyguard, Chyna feud, etc.) took the wind out of his debut promo with Rock.

 

Guys like D'Lo Brown, Val Venis, The Brood, The Hardy Boys, Too Much/Too Cool, etc. all showed us that they were worth a damn in the ring (some moreso than others) and were allowed to get over. Right now, it seems like guys are only allowed to get over *so much*, and we know the reasons behind that.

 

Oh, and I'll take something Hardcore Holly and Big Show vs. X-Pac and Kane over The Undertaker vs. The Dudley Boyz any day of the week.

[Guest Ray]

2000 which was the best year since 1992.

Did we miss the greatness that was 1997?

 

 

 

Anyway, in terms of quality wrestling, 2004 > 1999.

 

1999 was awful.

 

The Raw brand has produced quite a few good/great matches this year.

[Guest Staravenger]

Comparing 1999 to 2004, 2004 (at least for RAW) is smoking 99's ass in EVERYTHING.

 

Russo's spotty booking with changing feuds every week, nonsensical title switches (an estimated 1 title change per week) and shitty, forgetable PPV's. The only plus was giving mid-carders more T.V. Time.

 

2004 has (on RAW) had some very good matches, feuds have a better meaning to it, Vince McMahon isn't turning heel/face every 10 minutes, and the PPV's have been very good.

[Lt. Al Giardello 0]

I agree with the majority of you. Bradshaw needs the belt taken off him, ASAP. His character isn't too bad, and he can cut a very good heel promo. But he is not main event material. He should be contending for the U.S. title, now the WWE title.

 

What pisses me off, if the WWE wanted to take the title off Eddie, they could of had better wrestlers who can draw better taken it off him. John Cena isn't a great wrestler, but he is REALLY over. He's much more over then Bradshaw. Why not give him the shot? Or even Booker T. He's much more over then Bradshaw.

 

The RAW part of show is decent, has it's negatives but has it's postives. Some people hate on this show because they just like to bitch. The WWE is not mistreating Benoit, get that through your thick heads.

 

Comparing 1999 to 2004. 1999 was strictly based on storylines, the WWF at the time couldn't give a flying fuck how matches went, they just wanted characters that would draw. And it clearly worked, because the ratings came in. Nowadays they seem to have equal importance with storylines and wrestling. But the thing is, they don't have the over the top characters they have in 1999/1998.

 

Randy Orton is a poor-man's verison of The Rock in 1998. Randy doesn't have the ability to make a great match like Rocky did, and he doesn't have the same charisma, spark and mic skills as Rocky did. Randy is no doubt one of the future of the WWE, and is over. But he is not The Rock. I doubt we will ever see a wrestler like the Rock again. He is in a leauge of his own.

 

Anyway I'm just ranting on. Sorry.

[Guest Bad Brad Jacobs]

I would be way less embarrased to admit I watch wrestling based on today's RAW than RAWs of 99. The ministry was really kind of stupid. As long as Lita doesn't somehow give birth to an alien hand in 3 months I will stick to my opinion that the WWE is better now than they were in 99.

[Guest commie_050]

The reason the workrate was so poor in 2004 was there wasn't a single capable worker anywhere near the main event. Check the talent roster:

 

Austin: Burned out after neck trauma, relied solely on punch-kick because he couldnt do anything else. Didn't improve until after his neck fusion surgery.

 

Rocky: Didn't develop in-ring skills until 2000 match series with HHH and Benoit. Looked good against Foley due to a strict reliance on brawling and comedy elements in all matches.

 

Taker: Broken down, needed time off all year and didn't get it until the fall.

 

Foley: He himself has called 1999 his worst year as a wrestler, with personally embarrasing performances near the end of the year. Body finally giving out on him.

 

HHH: Didn't develop into main-event caliber performer until 2000.

 

Billy Gunn: Needs no explanation

 

Big Show: Ditto

 

Test: Double-ditto

 

The only other main eventers I can recall from that year were McMahon's, including Vince, who main-evented no less than four times.

 

From a storyline standpoint, Vince Russo did create a more compelling episodic format, but he also creating a number of problems that the WWE is still suffering from today, such as storyline discontinuity and devaluation of the title belts. When the title changes hands every couple of weeks the show is compelling, until people get tired of title changes and a title change can't even pop the tiniest of ratings increases. More importantly, 1999 placed the emphasis on TV ratings, rather than on PPV buyrates, a major miscalculation which the WWE has yet to correct. Rating in 1999 were through the roof, but check the buyrates, which were, for the most part, abysmal in comparison.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Did we miss the greatness that was 1997?

 

Austin/Bret was awesome, and the Taker/Kane/Shawn thing was interesting, but there was a BIG gap in the midcard aside from the Hart Foundation with the Gang Wars going on. Plus, much of the year featured filler guys like the luchas and midgets because the roster wasn't big enough to fill out the show. It started improving towards the very end of the year, but it was much too late. It was a good year, but it had too many flaws to compare with 1992 or 2000. I would probably have it 3rd or 4th in the post-Wrestlemania era, competing with 1989 (the year of Hogan/Savage and a stacked midcard with the likes of Rick Rude, Mr. Perfect, the Brainbusters, Rockers, Harts, Dibiase, etc. running wild).

 

EDIT: Yes, I am referring to quality, not financial success.

[Guest Rrrsh]

I perosnally dont really care that were are in a down time as Wrestling goes. The best wrestling always happens when the popularity is down. When its up, its because angles and gimmicks are focused and rubes like that. Good matches dont draw as well as good charicters. So, yes, 2004 is much better than 1999. Ill take Jericho, Edge and Orton in the IC picture over Christian, Shamrock and Blackman. And I'll take Eddy Benoit and Michaels in the Main Event with some crap compared to just crap.

[Promoter 0]

Man, some guys hit the nail on the head for me. I did love the wwe in 1999 until WM 15. The show got atrocious after. I also think Vince went that route in 1999 because wcw was still neck and neck in 1998 because of the star power. The wwe did more outrageous things to get people to change over to USA. Maybe we are forgetting that part, but it still isn't an excuse for embarassing stuff like birth of a hand and Austin on an ebalming room table.

 

You notice in 2000 the wwe did a complete reverse when they started to get more talented wrestlers like Benoit and Guerrero into the mix? commie_50 has a point about the lack of workrate horses. Once the wwe got guys like Angle, Jericho, the radicalz they started to focus more on the wrestling aspect. Don't forget that wcw still did have a strong wrestlers in 1997-1998. Vince came back with some solid wrestling and storylines in 1998, but 1999 the wackiness took off and made people take notice over wcw as well. Yep, the best wrestling does always happen when the popularity is down, but the wwe probably doesn't get that the slow progression of increasing the quality brought back fans. I would say from the increasing quality of the product from WM 13-WM 15 the wwe got back a lot of fans. 1999's change of campaign from "attitude" to "get it"(action adventure) hindered things I think.

[Chazz 0]

Granted they didn't hit a Home Run with every show, but I'd take Russo/Ferrera over Stephanie McMahon,Brian Gerwertz, and Bruce Pritchard anyday.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Now I'm all nostalgic. Dammit.

 

1999 produced better television programs.

 

2004 is producing better professional wrestling programs.

 

I like both equally, but damned if I was going to miss Raw back in 1999.