Am I The Only One?

[♥Taylor♥ Melo]

That thinks the Attitude Era is over-rated?

[Save_Us.Andy]

Yes!! yes you are.

[♥Taylor♥ Melo]

I thought so, Does no-one agree with me?

[AfroIYH]

It's overrated in a lot of aspects

[Londango*]

I agree with you.

Half the people who go on about how great the Attitude Era was probably didn't even watch the WWF much back then anyway.

Sure, it had guys like The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin, but they were no bigger stars back then than John Cena or Randy Orton are today.

Alot of the main events were the same people being paired up against each other over and over again. It was always HHH, Austin, Rock, Mankind and Undertaker with Kane occassionally thrown in there to do the job. You very rarely saw any "fresh young talent" get a chance like you do nowadays. Plus the undercard during the Attitude Era was nothing special. The shows always revolved around Austin vs McMahon or Corperation vs Ministry. The undercard was never really interesting.

So yeah, the Attitude era had more big events and "controversial" moments. But as an overall show it was no better than the show we get today. The WWE today is more balanced, and less "big shocking moments" is better, IMO. Because that way when something big and shocking does happen, it is 10 times more effective.

For example TNA and WWE. TNA pack their matches full of massive spots and fancy moves, and eventually you just dont really care, no matter how impressive the moves are. But if a big spot or a big move happens in WWE, you pay attention to it and you mark out, because its not something you see every day.

Im starting another one of my rants... But basically people need to stop thinking about the talent that was around during the Attitude Era, and realise the ammount of talent that there is in this new era.

[♥Taylor♥ Melo]

I agree with everything London has just said, That was spot on.

[(-CM-)]

I prefare it today.... attitude era only had 5 people i liked

Austin
Rock
Taker
HHH
Kane

Everyone else was sort of.... megh... to me

[♥Taylor♥ Melo]

[quote name='Magillionare' post='5415407' date='Dec 8 2008, 11:57 PM']I prefare it today.... attitude era only had 5 people i liked

Austin
Rock
Taker
HHH
Kane

Everyone else was sort of.... megh... to me[/quote]
Of the 5 you liked in Attitude Era i liked one and i still like that one wrestler today.

[Haas3-16]

I liked the Attitude Era. Mainly because of Austin.

[Spleenishly-Green]

It's already been stated once before why it's not OVERRATED. I wish I could find that one post around here that listed the MANY reason why it's WAAAY better than today. There were actually YEARS full of great PPV's AND weekly shows. These days, it's a rarity to have a great PPV with a near perfect card. Not to mention, storylines were *censored*ing awesome! They left you wanting more, each week. Now, they're just not as consistent. It seems like every episode of RAW and Smackdown is like a *censored*ing lottery pick. You'll be lucky if you see a decent episode without a lot of filler.

[EdGasm]

No you're not.

I think that some of the people who say "WWE sucks now, the attitude era was better" are just bandwagoners who either A) Didn't watch it, or B) Don't want to get "flamed" by other members.

[quote name='Spleenishly-Green' post='5415680' date='Dec 8 2008, 08:20 AM']It's already been stated once before why it's not OVERRATED. I wish I could find that one post around here that listed the MANY reason why it's WAAAY better than today. There were actually YEARS full of great PPV's AND weekly shows. These days, it's a rarity to have a great PPV with a near perfect card. Not to mention, storylines were *censored*ing awesome! They left you wanting more, each week. Now, they're just not as consistent. It seems like every episode of RAW and Smackdown is like a *censored*ing lottery pick. You'll be lucky if you see a decent episode without a lot of filler.[/quote]

Or it may just seem that way because the viewers have become jaded with the lack of ZoMg bROCK LEsnER, GoldbERG, teH ROck, and StEVE AusTIN!!! D:

[Jack Windham]

[quote name='London*' post='5415378' date='Dec 8 2008, 07:40 AM']Sure, it had guys like The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin, but they were no bigger stars back then than John Cena or Randy Orton are today.[/quote]

I'm going to have to disagree here.

As good as Cena and Orton are, Rock and Austin were simply a level above them.

From a fan's perspective, I remember looking forward to seeing what Rock and Austin were going to do each week. Their mic work was just so compelling that it really made me sick to my stomach if I missed an episode.

I can't say the same about Cena and Orton.

Cena and Orton get good reactions from the audience, but Austin and Rock would get an arena to explode just from the first 3 seconds of their theme songs.

From a business perspective, Rock and Austin were on another level as well because they were able to capture mainstream attention and mainstream acceptance. Cena gets decent exposure in the media, but nothing like those two guys. Orton rarely even gets a mention with the media (which is extremely weird, but that's another topic for another time).

I think that the Attitude Era was a bit overrated (especially by fans who know no previous eras), but Rock & Austin were a level above Orton & Cena.

[.:Steesh10:.]

I prefer todays "era" rather than the attitude because there is more variety of talent now then back then, we still have the big names of HHH, undertaker, kane, Shawn Michaels and the lower positioned Talent then such as the Hardys, Edge, JBL.

[Londango*]

[quote name='TSC Wrestling' post='5415719' date='Dec 8 2008, 03:42 PM'][quote name='London*' post='5415378' date='Dec 8 2008, 07:40 AM']Sure, it had guys like The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin, but they were no bigger stars back then than John Cena or Randy Orton are today.[/quote]

I'm going to have to disagree here.

As good as Cena and Orton are, Rock and Austin were simply a level above them.

From a fan's perspective, I remember looking forward to seeing what Rock and Austin were going to do each week. Their mic work was just so compelling that it really made me sick to my stomach if I missed an episode.

I can't say the same about Cena and Orton.[/quote]

But dont you think that could be because during the Attitude Era you were much younger, and much more fascinated by the whole spectable of it all? Im not sure what age you are now, and what age you were during the Attitude Era, but the high point of the Attitude Era was nearly 10 years ago now.

I made a huge long post about this a while back in some other topic, but basically if your say 20 now, then you were only about 10 when the Attitude Era stuff was going on. Obviously your going to find all the characters and storylines much more fascinating at that age. And as I said in my other post a while back, if you look at the younger kids in the audience nowadays, the ones who are the same age as we were back during the Attitude Era, they are sitting their cheering wide-eyed and loving every minute of it. They love cheering for Cena and Batista, and they love booing Edge an Randy Orton.

I'd say its a safe enough bet that if all the people who say "I preferred the Attitude Era" sat down when they were 10 years old and watched a few weeks worth of todays WWE program, they would find it just as entertaining as the Attitude Era.

[Masson]

i disagree... i loved the whole invasion thingy they had going on... of course this was before i knew wrestling was fake... and i was like, 8 years old... the rock... austin... vintage jericho... its alllll goooood

[rockyking]

say what you want but i really miss the hardcore 24/7 running around all show long it gave the lower mid card guys descent time to show

[Scott Cage]

I loved the Attitude Era for one thing.

The power it brought with it, the way more bigger events then they have now.

Dont get m wrong, Its not about the current wrestlers. Its just the writing they do right now, is because they dont aim for the general audiance anymore, theyr tag team division is dead, and when;s the last time they really do something cool? For me right now, unlike the attitute era, the only matches I find cool are matches with three or more people in it, or the royal rumble

Back then there was alot more hardcore, and it really said the title of the era, Attitude Era to a big role

So thats why people usually like the attitute era over the current era. Its not about who the wrestlers are. Its because of the actions done there.

[Spleenishly-Green]

Perhaps one could attribute the fact that WWE had legitimate competition to why it had fueled more of a sense of urgency and earnestness from writers in the WWE and WCW. Nothing will ever be quite as exciting as The Monday Night Wars, to me. I don't know. I'm 19 Years Old.

[pwntage]

I gota say i much prefered the invasion era than the attitude era.

[The Knight]

I agree with you 100%
Very Overrated

[Spleenishly-Green]

[quote name='pwntage' post='5415968' date='Dec 8 2008, 01:21 PM']I gota say i much prefered the invasion era than the attitude era.[/quote]

That shit was faker than kayfabe! The Monday Night Wars lasted five years. That was five whole/full years of heated, intense, battles of "Survival of The Fittest" proportions that were as real as the business gets. The Invasion Angle (Keyword: ANGLE) lasted three months. Three months with WWF reincarnating WCW and ECW in their own mold and WRITING a kayfabe/scripted/staged competitive exchange. What the *censored*?! Come on, now! You'd be better off comparing NWA Circa 80's to WWF Circa 80's to The Attitude Era than comparing an angle that lasted a few measly months to a number of years!

[pwntage]

I know it was fake but some of my favorite matches happened in the invasion era such as Austin vs Kurt and the 5 man survivor series elimination match where Angle betrayed the aliance.

correct me if im wrong but it did last more than 3 months no?

[Ernez]

I must say, I loved the attitude era. Not because of who was in it, but the excitement it brought. It seemed to not repeat itself as much as today's wrestling. You can pretty much guess who wins now. I can't remember if it was back like that then, but that was a long time ago. I was naive back then.

One thing today's WWE has over yesteryears (if you will) is that they push the smaller guys now.

[Scott Cage]

[quote name='Ernez' post='5416019' date='Dec 8 2008, 06:44 PM']I must say, I loved the attitude era. Not because of who was in it, but the excitement it brought. It seemed to not repeat itself as much as today's wrestling. You can pretty much guess who wins now. I can't remember if it was back like that then, but that was a long time ago. I was naive back then.

One thing today's WWE has over yesteryears (if you will) is that they push the smaller guys now.[/quote]

They did it back then when they had;

Euro champ

Hardcore Champ

...

[Spleenishly-Green]

[quote name='pwntage' post='5415999' date='Dec 8 2008, 01:37 PM']I know it was fake but some of my favorite matches happened in the invasion era such as Austin vs Kurt and the 5 man survivor series elimination match where Angle betrayed the aliance.

correct me if im wrong but it did last more than 3 months no?[/quote]

Wait! Okay. You're right. It was from March to November. Maybe that's only because I didn't consider it official until about July 11, 2001 on that episode of RAW when Stephanie was presented and introduced as the leader of the ECW end. Albeit, it was a nice little angle. It had some sparks. It was actually an awesome ANGLE, looking back on it. But a lot of people were shat on, when it's all said and done. Rob Van Dam, Taz(z), Raven, and quite a few others who actually could've been handled WAAAY better. It took Rob Van Dam up until 2006 for Vince to FINALLY realize how good RVD really was. Man, I miss that guy. I'm mad that missed nearly that whole year (2006) because RVD got the push of a lifetime. I wish he wouldn't have *censored*ed it up.