Will WWE ever be as great as they were in 2000?

[AmazingRen 0]

I feel the reason WWE isn't great as it is because they don't have the same formula they had in 2000. The way they did it in 2000 was they had 3 top heels and 3 top faces:

 

Faces:

1. Rock- the funny face

2. Undertaker- the badass face

3. Jericho- the mid-card face that could shoot striaght to the main event

 

Heels:

1. HHH- the badass heel

2. Kurt Angle- the funny heel

3. Benoit- the mid-card heel that could shoot striaght to the main event

 

If you look at WWE right they don't have these kinds of things. All the faces and heels right now are so plain and boring. What's the difference between Orton and Masters? Big Show and Kane?

 

Also in 2000 the tag team division was better. I know people will say back then they had competition, but atleast they tried from 2001-2004. Right now it seems like there not even trying and i'm not just talking about the wrestling it's the sportsentertainment part of it also. There's no must see feud or storyline going on right now and there biggest PPV of the year it about to come up.

 

The most over face on Raw is Flair (a guy in his 50's that's never going to get a mega push), Smackdown most over face Rey(a wrestler that's only getting a push due to his friends death).

 

The most over heel on Raw Edge/Vince(a plain guy that's getting the same push that Randy got in 2004), The most over heel on Smackdown is.........THERE ISN'T ONE!!!

[Guest Museite]

Not as long as Vince lives.

[2GOLD 0]

It all depends on how they handle the problems they currently have. The writing and angles continue to be lackluster, the talent roster is getting very thin, the gimmicks are going backwards into the silly instead sticking with what made them huge again, and it seems they still have problems between management and workers.

 

It just feels like "The Power is back" was just another way of saying "Welcome back late 80s WWF!"

 

Austin and Rock both excelled because the writers recognized what the audience was doing and realized they couldn't script for guys like Austin and Rock. Losing the unscripted element has hurt the company more than anything. I mean, could you imagine Austin and Rock having to read scripted promos and how lame they would have sounded? Austin would have been made into Trevor Murdoch, because gay rednecks are funny. Hell Cena came to RAW and his edgy persona went up in smoke in favor of gay jokes and corny ass catch phrases instead of bringing him over as his fucking unscripted hard rap promo Smackdown character.

 

It's possible but I don't see it happening for awhile.

[Silence 0]

Hell Cena came to RAW and his edgy persona went up in smoke in favor of gay jokes and corny ass catch phrases instead of bringing him over as his fucking unscripted hard rap promo Smackdown character.

 

This week, he's also started talking like Will Smith.

[Guest JericholicEdgeHead]

Why just 2000?

 

Will WWE ever be as good as they were anytime from 1980 to 2000?

 

Go back and watch some MSG/Spectrum shows from 1980-1988, WWE right now can't touch this era. Great faces and heels, great wrestling psychology, hot crowds, and yes some great wrestlers as well that knew how to put on a good match.

 

Or what about 1988-1996, sure there were alot of silly gimmicks during this time frame as there is now (spirit squad, boogyman, Shelton's Mama ect.), but at least the focus of the TV shows was WRESTLING, not soap opera skits and long winded promos that puts people to sleep.

 

Right now they are trying to re-live 1998 and 1999, which in my opinion are two years that I would rather forget about.

 

I also agree that 2000 would be a good template for WWE to go back to. But right now I would take 1981 or 1984 or 1993 or 1996 or any years in between.

[Guest Mukawa]

Right now they are trying to re-live 1998 and 1999, which in my opinion are two years that I would rather forget about.

 

Funny since those were the peak years and overall best time to watch the company. In no way is this sh^tty period a revisionist of those golden times.

[naiwf 0]

To answer your question, I'd say no because as you listed, they had a bunch of all time talents at their peaks at the same time. Right now there isn't a single performer on their payroll who is in his prime, or young enough to improve, that will go down as a legendary talent. There's really no way to duplicate a peak level Rock, HHH, Austin, Angle, Mankind etc when the bulk of guys getting the call up these days get it because of their physique and nothing else.

[razazteca 0]

Just what Raw needs, Stephanie as GM with HHH telling her how to book the show! While your at it why not bring back the Mean Street Posse, Patterson Sarge Slaughter & Brisco, and Test.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

It also doesn't help that the person in charge of creative is Dusty Rhodes... oh wait... that's not Dusty Rhodes??? Oh my... that blonde hair does her no favours...

[cabbageboy 0]

I've watched quite a few of those old school MSG and Philly shows on 24/7, stuff from roughly 1980-84...and for the most part that stuff sucks ass. There are some individual matches that are good from this time period (Patterson/Slaughter street fight, Snuka/Backlund, etc). Honestly I think the WWF first started getting good as far as in ring wrestling goes around 1988. That's when they signed several guys like Hennig, Owen, the Rockers, etc. and it improved their mid card dramatically.

 

2000 was a good year but is vastly overrated. It was the beginning of HHH getting the push from hell, winning the main event at WM as a heel, and so on (yeah his first title win was in 99 but it wasn't until 2000 that he was truly a top guy). Guys like Jericho and Benoit were ready but were held down, albeit having good matches against each other. 2000 also had some really shitty stuff like the RTC, Angle's brother hiding under the ring to help him beat UT, the entire debacle known as the "Who hit Austin?" angle, the fizzle out of the HHH/Angle/Steph triangle that went nowhere.

 

1999 gets shit on a lot for not having much in the way of good wrestling or PPVs and I guess that is true. But Raw at that point was so fast paced, so enjoyable.

 

2000 had a decent oasis from roughly June-October. The stuff before that was solid in terms of wrestling but it was utter depression in terms of booking or sending the fans home happy. And the late 2000 stuff was a total joke that was a harbinger of the dreaded Steph booking era to come.

[Promoter 0]

I just think the wrestling business over-exposed itself during the last boom and now everything seems lame in comparison. I think it's that simple. Look at all the stuff that went on in wrestling from ecw to wcw to wwf and look at all the "action" today. I mean how could the masses REALLY get excited over this?

 

The wwe was lucky in 2002 as I think it was heading for a fall after wcw was bought out anyways. People can mock Hogan and the nWo all they want, but when the wwe brought them back it was exciting for the simple fact to see the main guys who helped usher in the 90's boom in the wwf again. Once that wore off, mainstream attention dropped off and horrible storylines kicked in. They were lucky with Hogan/Rock because if that storyline post Hogan/Rock promo on the first night occurred with anyone else it would have completely bombed at the box office. Look at HHH/Jericho for an example. The talent was there, but it could only cover up crap for so long.

 

1998 was a tremondous year and I think it really started in the summer of '97 and ended around Survivor Series '98 with Rock's surprising win of the title. It peaked with Rock/Austin at WM 15 and has been downhill ever since. I mean it still did good business after, but the real boom era peaked at WM 15 imo. The wwe just got lucky with getting wcw mainstays coming over in 2000. Imagine, if that didn't happen and Russo actually stayed with the wwe? WWE 2000 may never occurred. It's just that all the monkey tricks have been used and the wwe can't write and book for crap more or less today. I don't even blame guys like Cena and Orton as much because the wwe even had Rock and Austin losing steam with their crappy booking and writing that took over in 2001 and 2002.

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

98-99?? Who was good apart from Austin? Heck, even he was better in 96/97 and in 2001.

[Naked Snake 0]

Threads like this are funny. You can't accurately predict what is going to happen in the future. Look at 1988 for example. I bet people thought we'd never have someone with as much mainstream appeal as Hulk Hogan and no one would have the wrestling talent of Ric Flair. People also thought that run would last for ever. 5 years later, the WWF and the WCW were having hardtimes in 1993. 5 years after 1993 Stone Cold Steve Austin was catching on like gangbusters.

 

How do you know we aren't 5 years away from the next big run of the Rock or Stone Cold? You can't accurately predict that. You can talk negatively because it's the smark thing to do, but it's really hard to see what the next big project is.

 

I remember watching Rocky Maivia in early 1997 and thinking this guy would never be over. 5 years later the guy was a legit Hollywood actor.

 

Right now things look crappy for the WWE, but you never know what will happen...

[Papacita 0]

Entertainment-wise, 98/early 99 was great. The wrestling wasn't the best, but the shows were so enjoyable as a whole that it really didn't matter.

 

On a somewhat unrelated topic, am I the only one that's just plain sick of the basic face/heel dynamic in WWE? I think that aspect of their shows turns me off more than anything else. It's gotten even worse in the last couple of years, because it seems like now more than ever they're booking wrestlers based on their roles as a face or a heel rather than their character in general (for example, Carlito will cheat to win not because of his character, but because he's bad and that's what bad people do. Or a face wins the World belt and suddenly the other faces just aren't that interested in it anymore). Now I know that they can't completely scrap the face/heel thing, because it'll always be there in some form, but I just they'd get rid of as much of it as possible and get back to using characters as the base of their booking.

[Promoter 0]

That is true, but why put a damper on everyone's doom parade

 

Guy, I think Hogan and Flair's run has been forever. They are still here! Flair's the I-C champion and Hulk Hogan went over Shawn Michaels like it was 1985 all over again

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

BTW, I think everyone will be proven wrong with John Cena, but we'll see. Let's also not forget about HBK and Bret Hart paving the way for Austin either. They made it seem okay to not be monsters as heavyweight champions. Everything takes time even the boom periods. If Hogan's negative response didn't happen he wouldn't have turned heel in 1996. If Hall and Nash didn't jump there would be no nWo. So, things have to align with the stars too. It's just what they do when things are hot that turn everyone off is the problem.

 

I also agree that the wwe has abandoned all the basics of what brought them back from the dead. They use to book more smart by winking to the smark audience, while still playing the mark audience. I have to say they did this brilliantly in 1997 and 1998. Abandoned it somewhat in 1999 and 2000 and completely jumped the shark in late 2001 and 2002. Look how Vince's character is now compared to how they had it in 1997 and 1998. It seems way forced now and not natural. They use to make the happenings seem more natural which brought the realism to a new level in the attitude era. Remember, the attitude era commercials between Survivor Series 97 to WrestleMania 14? They even had HBK challenging other athletes to do what he did in the ring, while he challenged them in their sport. All little things, but it added a lot. That's why the Mike Tyson thing took off so great at the time.

[AmazingRen 0]

I agree. Before the Rock and Austin match at WrestleMania 17 neither one of them was acting like a heel and if wasn't for Debra being part of the storyline the feud would have been perfect. That's why I wish the HBK/Hogan feud was a face v. face match instead of Shawn turning heel.

[Promoter 0]

I always wondered about Debra in that storyline. It seems they might have gone with Austin turning on Debra at Mania. I wonder if that would have helped Austin's heel turn along with Vince Mcmahon transition better where fans started to boo?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

It peaked with Rock/Austin at WM 15 and has been downhill ever since. I mean it still did good business after, but the real boom era peaked at WM 15 imo.

Considering that ratings hit their highest levels later that year and WWE had their best year finanically in 2000-1, I'd say the peak was WM X-7.

[Promoter 0]

I know about that and its true that the attitude era really did end at WM X-7(Mania 15 still did a bigger buy-rate according to numbers by Scott Kieth's book). However, imo the "mania" over wrestling reached its peak with WM 15 with the split crowd of Rock and Austin for the wwf title match. Austin and Rock carried the wwf to new levels and the Austin/Mcmahon storyline reached its apex.

 

Stuff that came after could be viewed as wcw just screwing up and their fans tuning into the wwf with the jump of the Radicalz in 2000. Remember Jericho and Big Show both appearing in 1999. It was just icing on the cake, but the main stars really hit sky high before. The wwf got more balanced with the influx.

 

I'm saying this because HHH was not that hot as champion in 1999 and did everything from HIAC to making him go over 4 men at Mania 16 to get heat. They didn't have to do that prior to Mania 15 when they played things out over time and had long reigning champions like Rock as IC champ and NAO as long running champs. The Austin up against authority fit the storyline with his title run cut short due to Vince Mcmahon. After the End of An Era match the company started to really hotshot and blow its wad with smackdown and changing the title a million times to keep viewers which is why I think today things seem kind of tame.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I know about that and its true that the attitude era really did end at WM X-7(Mania 15 still did a bigger buy-rate according to numbers by Scott Kieth's book). However, imo the "mania" over wrestling reached its peak with WM 15 with the split crowd of Rock and Austin for the wwf title match. Austin and Rock carried the wwf to new levels and the Austin/Mcmahon storyline reached its apex.

With WM X-7 selling out the Astrodome and getting just over 1 million buys, a level of buys WM XV didn't come close to, I'd say the 'mania' peaked there.

[Promoter 0]

Yeah, but the buy-rate was higher for Mania 15. WM X-7 reached more homes because of availability. Remember things were dropping off before Austin even returned in 2000 and he didn't help ratings like they thought he would. It was a big reason why they went with turning Austin heel in Houston(which was gutsy and I did like that). WM 17 also had a much more appealing card from top to bottom, but I'm not really talking about that though(also consider the whole hype of wcw being bought by Vince and teasing wcw vs. wwf at the show*it wasn't straight wwf related as wm 15). It's really about the frenzy of the average guy on the street just going batshit for anything wrestling related which I thought Mania 15 had. You aren't wrong though with the numbers. I'm just going off more how people reacted to wrestling in regular settings, bars, and on the street around WM 15 compared to WM 17. Some of that magic was gone at least here anyways.

[NoCalMike 0]

Until there is competition, REAL competition, competition that drives WWE to be better. Hell it can even be argued that it took ECW & WCW for WWE to be pushed into getting better.

[AmazingRen 0]

Speaking of 2000, I don't remember being more into a WWE show than the show that feature the Radicalz/DX v. Rock/Cactus Jack/Too Cool and Rikishi match. The build-up was great with Cactus making a HIAC match and then HHH making him put his career on the line. Then the Radicalz turning on him. Then at the end with Kane returning with Paul Bearer.That was the hottest crowd I have ever seen on TV. I also think the ratings for that match was one of WWE's highest rated matches in WWE history. Does anybody know where that show came from.

[Promoter 0]

Funny you brought that up because I remember the rumour that the crowd that night won them WrestleMania for 2001. It was in Texas somewhere I think. That was a crazy crowd and perhaps the best in history on television. However, I think the Calgary crowd has it beat from Canadian Stampede.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Wrestlemania XV had a 2.32 and Wrestlemania X-7 a 2.4 according to prowrestlinghistory.com so there is some dispute about that. Regardless, the peak in ratings was in 2000, which was also the greatest year financially in WWF history, and X-7 was seen by more people than any other WWE PPV in history. It is safe to say that the peak occurred well after Wrestlemania XV.

[Jericho2000Mark 0]

Wasn't the peak in ratings in 1999?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

The peak in ratings was in 1999, but their best finanical year was 2000-1.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

I feel the reason WWE isn't great as it is because they don't have the same formula they had in 2000.

 

I'm sorry, but if there's one thing the WWE doesn't need more of right now its formulas.

[Jericho2000Mark 0]

I was going to say that 2000 was their best year probably because it was the first full year they had SmackDown...but they had at least 6 PPV's that year which did 500 000 buys and over, although three of them were because of Austin's return(s)(Backlash, Unforgiven & No Mercy). Where as '98 and '99 did excellent buys for the big three, and decent buys for everything else.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The peak in ratings was in 1999, but their best finanical year was 2000-1.

 

My mistake. Actually, I would like to find out what the average ratings were from both years, as just scanning through the list RAW was in the 5.0s several times in 1999 but almost every night was in the 6s prior to the move to TNN move. The highest single rating was that 8.1 on May 10th, 1999, but the next after that was a 7.4 on May 1, 2000. I'm curious if the 1999 ratings were really as strong as people think in comparison the USA Raws in 2000. The Road to Wrestlemania period was definitely higher in 2000 than in 1999.