How would you rate the Ruthless Aggression Era?

[Paralyzer Z]

We as wrestling fans tend to divide the WWE's life stages into 3 main periods: The Golden age era (1984-c.1992), The oh so popular Attitude era(1998-2001) and the PG era(2009-present). What about the in between year, the inter-era periods? These are the time periods either less talked about or not often refereed to by name (E.g New generation and Ruthless Aggression).

The "Ruthless Aggression era's" duration period lasted from 2002-2008, longer than most of the other eras as of right now. It saw the upstart John Cena, and Randy Orton take center stage. In the initial parts we saw the aftermath of the invasion angle then leading to the regime of Evolution. When that ended Batista and Cena made their rise to the top. It would remain that way into the next era the PG Era. Anyway enough of that tangent, what I see about as rarely as a platypus is the quality of this transition period discussed. There is for the most part acclaim for the Golden age and Attitude era, and a mixed reaction to the PG. The question is what do you think of that in between period from Attitude to PG?

To me there are many gems in this time period. Rock/Hogan, Evolution, Cena's reaction at one stand 2006 among others. In fact I believe that they took what they did (shenanigan wise) in the AE and took it to another level. Does that mean it was of more quality? Depends on your preferences but when you see a live sex celebration on TV or Eddie Guerrero bleeding so much that it is very high on the Muta scale you know that the badass factor isn't gone. Even in a time where this is more recent than the AE, the latter is still mentioned far more often.

So here are my questions to you:

Why is does "Ruthless Aggression" era appear to me more obscure that the Attitude. PG, or Golden eras?

Do find the content of this era to be more edgy than that of the preceding Attitude era?

Where would you rank it among the other eras in WWE history? Better than which ones, inferior to which of them?

 

[The Future Rises]

I'm just gonna go right ahead and say it, I loved the Ruthless Aggression era. It's probably my favorite of all the so called eras us wrestling fans like to refer to.


Why does "Ruthless Aggression" era appear to me more obscure that the Attitude. PG, or Golden eras?
I would say because it isn't really officially known as the "Ruthless Aggression" era by the WWE. It's just us fans remembering it that way. You have the PG era where every now and then a wrestler would point out that it's PG(usually being Cena), you had the very edgy Attitude Era where you always saw the trademark "Attitude" with the WWF logo, you had the ""New Generation" themed era where the whole New Generation wrestlers back then like Bret Hart, Diesel, Shawn Michaels, etc.. were shining big time, and then of course you had the "Golden Age" era where the first thing you would think about when looking back at it is the over-the-top characters like Hulk Hogan and The Ultimate Warrior, it was the era that revolutionized Pro Wrestling. The Ruthless Aggression era, though? It's really just us in the IWC who like to refer to it by that.

Do find the content of this era to be more edgy than that of the preceding Attitude era?
More edgy? I wouldn't say so. The Attitude Era was obnoxious, VERY obnoxious. I'd say it was more controversial than the Attitude Era, though. I know a lot of people wouldn't agree with me, but the Ruthless Aggression Era had a good amount of very controversial things, mostly angles and characters, in it. Where stuff like racism and death used to seriously be a part of angles.

Where would you rank it among the other eras in WWE history? Better than which ones, inferior to which of them?
To me, it's definitely up there in my top two. Along with the Attitude Era, they're my top two favorite eras.

 

[Punkftw]

To me, definitely the best period after the Attitude Era. The best thing about the Ruthless Aggression Era was, it had seriousness to its storylines + some really good matches like HBK/Angle @ WM21. And ofcourse, elements of the attitude era...Blood, headshots and sometimes even language. Apart from this, I even miss the atmosphere of wrestling during those days...I mean...The stages for both shows were great, simple...not too much lighting etc

Why does "Ruthless Aggression" era appear to me more obscure that the Attitude. PG, or Golden eras?​

As The Future Rises^ said, the time never had a specific title. It was just a time WWE was running or floating

Do find the content of this era to be more edgy than that of the preceding Attitude era?​

The Attitude Era was extreme...It crossed limits and thats why the fans will always love it cause the superstars would do anything to entertain the fans. However, the Ruthless Aggression Era was a milder version of it.

Where would you rank it among the other eras in WWE history? Better than which ones, inferior to which of them?​

Very Easy. 2nd. The very best alternative to the Attitude Era. I seriously never thought the Ruthless Aggression would go, but...anyways..there's no doubt it's one of my fav

Personally, 2004,2005,2006 and early 2007 were my fave time periods of this Era. No doubt, It is sure as hell better than the crap we see today !!

 

[H33LTurn]

In my opinion the Ruthless Aggression era was great. It had such a balance between good storylines and good in ring performances. The characters were interesting, rivalries were actually intense, and I think we got more main eventers out of that era than ever before. Cena, Orton, Batista, Booker T (WWE wise), and Kurt Angle were all products of the Ruthless Aggression era. We also got great midcard wreslter like Shelton Benjamin, the Guerreros, Rey, Christian, big red machine Kane, Snitsky. All and all I think this is what WWE should be aiming for again. Of course making a couple of changes to suit the times but it was wrestling's true peak imo.

 

[rahi619]

Muhammed Hassan defines this era for me. The fact that the WWE had the balls to touch on this topic (Bad use of words I know) speaks volumes. I even remember when they had the debate with King/JR and Hassan/Davari. Funny thing is though is that I remember at that time many people complained about how the WWE wasn't what it once was but when I look back on that era now I certainly did enjoy it and find the majority of storylines entertaining.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Why is does "Ruthless Aggression" era appear to me more obscure that the Attitude. PG, or Golden eras?

Because WWE didn't name that era like they named the others like Golden Era, Attitude Era etc.

Do find the content of this era to be more edgy than that of the preceding Attitude era?

Not as much edgy as the Attitude Era but it was edgy.

Where would you rank it among the other eras in WWE history? Better than which ones, inferior to which of them?

I would rate it after the Attitude Era. Many years of The Ruthless Aggression era were equally as good as many Attitude years for ex. 2003,2004 and 2005. 2006 was mediocre. Then from 2007-2008 it started going downhill as WWE were going towards PG era.

 

[VinnieSunshine]

Why is does "Ruthless Aggression" era appear to me more obscure that the Attitude. PG, or Golden eras?

I honestly dont ever remember anyone, including WWE, calling it the "ruthless aggression" era. That time between the attitude era and the "PG era" was more of a transitional period. Stars were leaving while other stars were being created. It was more of a rebuilding era for WWE than anything else.

Do find the content of this era to be more edgy than that of the preceding Attitude era?

Edgier? No. Again, it was a transitional period. Shit went down that caused forced WWE to tone down the content. They were losing advertisers, families and parents were complaining too much about the content, ratings starting slipping...WWE had no choice but to make a change. Add to that the fact that WWE lost both Eddie and Chris during these years.

Where would you rank it among the other eras in WWE history? Better than which ones, inferior to which of them?

I wouldn't rank it. I'd say those are the forgotten years. WWE wasn't in a rush to create NEW stars until they went into panic mode when they started to lose their top draws. Storylines were weak.

 

[MPWFchairman]

Why is does "Ruthless Aggression" era appear to me more obscure that the Attitude. PG, or Golden eras?

Do find the content of this era to be more edgy than that of the preceding Attitude era?

Where would you rank it among the other eras in WWE history? Better than which ones, inferior to which of them?[/B]

Firstly i thought the Ruthless aggression era was from like 2002-2005 when Cena& Batista won the World Titles at Wrestlemania and then i would say there era was from 2005-2008 which was the start of the now known PG era. With that said, it was actually my favorite era of wrestling. I think that compared to the attitude era it produced solid PPV's every single time. I mean if you haven't watched every PPV of 2002 then you are missing out. They are fantastic!

In terms of edginess, i think it was able to draw the line between being too over explicit like the attitude era, but it also gave us fantastic wrestling matches, plus the brand split actually meant something as well as all the championships. And Smackdown was actually RAW's equal. Which is certainly not the case now.

For me this era was great again because of how solid the wrestling and storylines were(minus the whole Katie Vic thing), it produced huge stars like Lesnar, Cena, Orton and Batista and to me it was an overall fun time producing three of the best WrestleMania's in a row.(18,19,20)

 

[Steve0904]

I'd like to respond to this one because it was the time I first got into wrestling.

So to the proposed questions

Why does "Ruthless Aggression" era appear to me more obscure that the Attitude. PG, or Golden eras?

As has already been said, the WWE just didn't name this one like the others/

Do find the content of this era to be more edgy than that of the preceding Attitude era?

No, definitely not, but it still had it's moments.

The Mick Foley/Cactus Jack-Orton hardcore match was pretty extreme. I believe it was Backlash 2004. The Cena-RVD match at One Night Stand in 2006 was the best crowd I've ever seen. The Live Sex celebration etc...

Where would you rank it among the other eras in WWE history? Better than which ones, inferior to which of them?

This is a tough question for anyone who hasn't seen all the eras, and it mostly has to do with when you were a kid IMO. If you grew up in the attitude era (which technically I did, because I was 8 yrs old in 1998) that era is probably your favourite, but I didn't really start watching until about 2002. With this said, I'll still rate it behind the attitude era because I can see how much the crowds were really into it in those days, but I was very happy watching the era that I did.

Cena was really Cena, you had the return of HBK, who was my undisputed 2nd favourite behind the aforementioned "true" version of Cena. You still had good/great PPV's with Biker Taker. You had Lesnar who was great for a short while. Taker and "Legend Killer" Orton also had a really nice feud. HBK-Y2J was great. The draft changed the landscape entirely in 2005. Can't say I liked Evolution that much, but they were an integral part of the era. You had a tag team division that was still very relevant early on and the cruiserweight division was great as well. We had one last match and feud between Rock and Austin. Cena/Edge rivalry was a great way to spend the summer of 2006.

I realize my thoughts are kind of jumbled, but I just typed them as they came.

 

[dudedudedude]

The buzz word Ruthless agression lasted less then a year. There was no ruthless agression era. Seriously. Vince gave a pep talk in the ring. Cole, Jr and King said it a few times, and then, the phrase just died.

If anything it would be the 'entertainment' era, due to the name change etc. In fact, I am pretty sure WWE brought out a theme music box set back a few years, and they refered to the post attitude era as the 'entertainment' era.

Take that as you will

 

[Dspiracy]

For starters, the "Ruthless Agression" era was announced by Eric Bischoff, in which he also revealed the WCW title for RAW at the time, because Brock Lesnar refused to defend his title on Raw in true heel fashion. I dont think the "Ruthless Aggression" era or any other for that matter will top the Attitude Era, however, Ruthless Aggression was an great era. I mean you had Brock Lesnar, Kane gets unmasked, the return of Bill Goldberg, Batista who was claimed by JR to be bigger than Goldberg, the rise of Orton, the nickname "Toothless Aggression" of Chris Benoit. I mean, it was amazing to say the least.

But WWE sux today, granted CM Punk is the best out there right now, IMO, but there is no one who is really a threat to his Championship. Daniel Bryan is great, but his character sux. If he had his ROH persona, he would be bad as fuck. I mean what the hell is the WWE doing? Screw this PG crap.

 

[M3420]

Having been in the audience for the birth of the 'ruthless aggression' era, I found myself incredibly excited wondering who this John Zena guy was (The AllState Arena wasn't always the best place to actually hear what the superstars were saying in the ring) However, awesome match that led to the risings of one of the WWE's most infamous/notorious/celebrated/hated performers in John Cena.

Why is does "Ruthless Aggression" era appear to me more obscure that the Attitude. PG, or Golden eras?
--The Golden Era and Attitude era were both lucky to enjoy a lot of mainstream crossover into the general public which drew new viewers and got the entire spectacle onto the map so to speak....defined in the Golden Era and Redefined in the Attitude era. However, the Ruthless Aggression era was more 'for the real fans' than it was for the general public. Someone who doesn't follow wrestling full time probably wouldn't really understand the greatness in One Night Stand pay per views ('05 and '06 were still two of the best pay per views I've ever seen) Would have enjoyed '06 even more if I wasn't so hungover but I digress... Also, the best guys in that era are full of truly magnificent talent, but as far as appealing to people at the Hollywood level, you really only have Hogan and The Rock to go off of which is a hard feat to accomplish and today's superstars shouldn't be unfairly judged to either have to live up to that standard or be considered inferior. Hogan and The Rock are once in a generation type of superstars (and yes I am a fan of both of them, but I understand people who aren't)
Not sure if that was a great answer but I gave it a shot and I guess the main point is that the Ruthless Aggression era was more 'inside' than the other two prominent eras, and it's still to early to really define this so called PG era, but having John Cena vs. The Rock certainly can't hurt. Also, the emergence of CM Punk and the getting rid of pudding matches, puppies matches, wet chocolate-live sex-turkey feather fantasy pillow fights may upset some of us male viewers, but does give the overall credibility rating a bit of a boost. And there is still plenty of eye candy to go around...Eve comes to mind (I'm also chomping at the bit for Awesome Kong--excuse me, Kharma to make her return)

Do find the content of this era to be more edgy than that of the preceding Attitude era?
--Attitude Era takes the cake for edgy, though Ruthless Aggression probably has second place on lock for a long time to come...though I guess if we factor TNA into the mix, you have to consider things like Beautiful People entrances, but seeing as how the Attitude Era was probably the only era to feature nudity on purpose (Lawler's ex wife way back when if I remember correctly), I will have to say that AE takes the cake...though Melina comes to mind in giving out the second place ribbon...

Where would you rank it among the other eras in WWE history? Better than which ones, inferior to which of them?
--As good as the Attitude Era, and I guess you could go on just about forever with this question and I think I prefer to not even attempt doing an actual rankings list as I'm sure there will be plenty of others who are less shy about that one...

Great thread though, thanks for reading

 

[GameOver]

Ruthless Agression wasn't an era, it was just the progression between Attitude and the Start of Super Cena and The Viper both of which were the new breakout stars at the time Cena i thought Cena coined it in his debut match against Kurt Angle. it was just steady transition away from hardcore attitude and the winding down of the stars involved in the wars to the PG it became. and since Cena became Super Cena at WrestleMania 21 in 2005 that was really the end of Attitude period and the start of the PG era therefore IMO RA wasnt really an era more just a transition period til Cena hit the main event.

 

[HBKperfect23]

Wasnt a fan. Probably watched less wrestling in this time then any other era. I liked 2002, some good stuff with HBKs return, Lesners run, Kurt Angle and the SD6. Also enjoyed 2004 a lot with Benoit and Eddie on top. With the exception of a few good moments thats really all I enjoyed. To me most of 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, and most of 2008 were uninteresting. Maybe its just because im a sucker for the golden age, I know a lot people enjoyed those years.

 

[DeathClutch]

Why does "Ruthless Aggression" era appear to me more obscure that the Attitude. PG, or Golden eras?



1. It was never an official era, it was John Cena in June/July 2002 stating he was in WWE to unleash Ruthless Aggression, along with Brock, Batista and Orton.

2. For an unofficial era it produced the 4 biggest post-attitude era stars.

Do find the content of this era to be more edgy than that of the preceding Attitude era?

1. No, but the content that was used was produced better with similar effects, WWE would have fucked up the Live Sex Celabration back in the attitude era.

Where would you rank it among the other eras in WWE history? Better than which ones, inferior to which of them?

I'm not going to start ranking Era's; that's ******ed to even ask as a whole it produced some good, some bad and the occasional ulgy.

My opinion is this, if WWE was working great in this Ruthless Aggression era that was between 2002-2007 why did WWE feel the need in 2006 to bring back DX, Kane (masked) ECW, OLD SCHOOL Undertaker (not the biker version of old school) even going as far as make idiotic gimmicks like the Attitude Era had (spirit squad) all Attitude Era-esque?

Because it didn't work, Cena was over and RAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS to the point the crowd cheers for Kurt Angle over him to the point WWE brought in Devari to be paired with Angle for heat, so WWE tried to bring back some of the Attitude Era while keeping Cena on top but to deflect the fact Cena's stock had dropped badly.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

It was an Era not just a transitional period.......WWE just didn't used the name as much.

In this video Vince McMahon introduces the Ruthless Aggression Era :

[YOUTUBE]B5m43PlXrR4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Krossbreed]

ruthless aggression was a transitional period just like wwe was right before austin became austin 3:16. New stars were needed to make things fresh for the betterment of the wwe's future...and if anything the debit of Cena, Orton, and Batista was what this was about...the older talent were not fresh they had been used on wcw, ecw and wwe and fans wanted some new faces in order for wwe to become what it is today.

i consider ruthless aggression a low point even the stars around the ring were not stars yet...certainly not jeff hardy he was still tag teaming...and one of there top guys was edge...who i always considered to be a bit of a sissy.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

ruthless aggression was a transitional period just like wwe was right before austin became austin 3:16. New stars were needed to make things fresh for the betterment of the wwe's future...and if anything the debit of Cena, Orton, and Batista was what this was about...the older talent were not fresh they had been used on wcw, ecw and wwe and fans wanted some new faces in order for wwe to become what it is today.

i consider ruthless aggression a low point even the stars around the ring were not stars yet...certainly not jeff hardy he was still tag teaming...and one of there top guys was edge...who i always considered to be a bit of a sissy.

Todays PG era is more of a transitional period than the Ruthless Aggression Era. HHH, Kane, Undertaker, Shawn Michaels,Kurt Angle,Chris Jericho,etc were the established guys with a mix of new guys like Brock Lesnar ,Randy Orton,Batista,John Cena,Bobby Lashley etc. The talent WWE has now is mediocre and shit compared to the Ruthless Agression era.

WWE has been making new stars since 2009 and its 2012 and they haven't created any top guys leaving CM Punk. Alberto Del Rio had the potential but Punk had to bury him to make him look bad.This is the most failed transitional period in WWE history.Since 2010 the WWE has reached its lowest point. Nowadays they have to bring guys like The Rock to sell Wrestlemania.

2002-2006 was a great time for Wrestling after the Attitude Era. The rosters were stacked and there was a great combination of Wrestling and storylines which were way better than the shit we see today.

 

[mrfantastic111]

Muhammed Hassan defines this era for me.

Of all things? Really? Not John Cena rising up to become this generations Hogan? Not Brock Lesnar becoming the fastest rising star in WWE history? Not HHH vs HBK vs Benoit at WM20? Hassan pushed boundaries of innovative entertainment - for what seemed like five minutes when looked at in comparison to the rest of WWE history...

As for the era itself, I liked it, but it kind of feels like a weird transitional period in the WWE. The first few years took awhile to maintain star-power consistency; as you had Brock, then Eddie, then Benoit, then briefly Orton, and it kind of felt weird as if their was never a consistent division of top guys fighting each other. I mean, you had the Attitude Era guys who were still around, but it took about 3-4 years until you had guys like Batista, Cena, Edge etc who took the ball and ran with it consistently to form a sense of top division structure.

What I liked the most, was that the WWE had moved closer to realism and new age pop culture, but still maintained the aggressiveness of the Attitude Era, so that stars could work with PG programming but still do intense promos which made stories sooooo much better. I think that the PG that we see today would be great if feuds and stories were as meaningful and intense as what we saw between Edge/Cena, Undertaker/Brock, Angle/HBK, HHH/Batista etc. What made those feuds so great was that the stories and promos felt so personal and intense that they felt real, and were MUCH easier to get into. I don't think that we need swearing anymore, nor blood, just intensity to enhance believability. When Edge was fighting Cena, it was more than just for the title. Those two were screaming in each others faces, jumping each other in hotel rooms, Cena's dad had his home invaded and got slapped to the ground, Edge got tossed into the Long Island sound, they beat each other in each others home towns, etc. It wasn't all about the championships, there was a sense of personal realism, as if there wasn't a ring or a title then they would of taken it to the streets. They seemed like the two top guys that were constantly in each others hair. They were like Rock/Austin. The intensity of their feud heightened what they were to the fans; Cena was the ultimate hero, and Edge was the Green Goblin. You tuned in just for the intense promos because you believed that no one gave Cena as much trouble as Edge did. The problem with PG is that every feud is a generic "I want your title" feud where they jump each for the sake of it. Where did the emotion go? What happened to all of the 'straight-from-the-heart' feuds and promos?

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Of all things? Really? Not John Cena rising up to become this generation Hogan? Not Brock Lesnar becoming the fastest rising star in WWE history? Not HHH vs HBK vs Benoit at WM20? Hassan pushed boundaries of innovative entertainment - for what seemed like five minutes when looked at against the rest of WWE history...

As for the era itself, I liked it, but it kind of feels like a weird transitional period in the WWE. The first few years took awhile to maintain star-power consistency; as you had Brock, then Eddie, then Benoit, then briefly Orton, and it kind of felt weird as if their was never a consistent division of top guys fighting each other. I mean, you had the Attitude Era guys who were still around, but it took about 3-4 years until you had guys like Batista, Cena, Edge etc who took the ball and ran with it consistently to form a sense of structure.

What I liked the most, was that the WWE had moved closer to realism and new age pop culture, but still maintained the aggressiveness of the Attitude Era, so that stars could work with PG programming but still do intense promos which made stories SOOOOOOOO much better. I think that the PG that we see today would be great if feuds and stories were as meaningful and intense as what we saw between Edge/Cena, Undertaker/Brock, Angle/HBK, HHH/Batista etc. What made those feuds so great was that the stories and promos felt so personal and intense that they felt real, and were MUCH easier to get into. I don't think that we need swearing anymore, nor blood, just intensity to enhance believability. When Edge was fighting Cena, it was more for just the title. Those two were screaming in each others faces, jumping each other in hotel rooms, Cena's dad had his home invade and got slapped, Edge got tossed in the Long Island sound, they beat each other in each others home towns, etc. It wasn't all about the championships, there was a sense of personal realism, as if there wasn't a ring or a title then they would of taken it to the streets. The problem with PG is that every feud is a generic "I want your title" feud where they jump each for the sake of it. Where did the emotion go? What happened to all of the straigh-from-the-heart feuds?

RAW wasn't PG till 2008... RAW was TV-14. Only Smackdown was rated PG. But it was different than today's PG WWE . Smackdown was rated PG -DLV but today the whole WWE is rated PG - V. PG DLV- and PG-V has huge difference.

HHH/Batista, Edge/Cena etc were all RAW fueds which was always TV-14.

 

[SD619]

Why is does "Ruthless Aggression" era appear to me more obscure that the Attitude. PG, or Golden eras?
Ruthless aggression was just a term that McMahon said and John Cena said at the time of his debut. It is not a very well defined 'era'. WWE/WWF has always been about aggression and to point out to a single era as aggression era would be unfair.

Do find the content of this era to be more edgy than that of the preceding Attitude era?
Not much. There was a certain edginess in this era that was different and to a certain extent lesser than that of the Attitude era.

Where would you rank it among the other eras in WWE history? Better than which ones, inferior to which of them?
To rate this era, I have to look at SmackDown and RAW differently. Almost throughout this era Smackdown was better than RAW. The matches and promotion of new guys all were better than RAW. RAW was good but got a bit repetitive with HHH's and Cena's year-long title reigns.

The PPVs did suffer due to the concept of single-branded PPVS.

 

[The Jeff]

I didn't like the RA era. I never was excited to watch the show because of the roster and Triple H

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

Actually The Ruthless Aggression period was a WWE approved era. They just don't mention it as much as Attitude. I loved RA it was a huge transitional period from attitude to pg. RA will be remembered mainly as the period where Triple H won most of his titles. But all in all I enjoyed it. Undertaker returned to his roots. Lesner came and left, Triple H helped two guys become 2 of WWE's top stars in Batista and Orton. We saw the rise of Cena. The new ECW. Unmasking of Kane which I think was a huge mistake LOL. Edge became the top heel. It was also the downfall of the womens division which sucks. Alot of big things happened during this time period. Some good some bad. Just like any other era really. I rank it 2nd behind attitude because it wasn't really as edgy but it was still pretty edgy lol.

 

[Atrue1onewo1f]

If I said it once I must have said it over one million times that "Ruthless Aggression" was never an era. again here is an excerpt....
"The Ruthless Aggression Era - (2003) This is not an "Era" This is just what vince requested from the talent Since Rock was leaving for Hollywood, Austin well you know....He wanted the rookies to step up and the veterans to show why they deserve their spots."

 

[Defekt]

Why is does "Ruthless Aggression" era appear to me more obscure that the Attitude. PG, or Golden eras?

After 2002 I don't think the WWE ever used the tagline "Ruthless Aggression" again. From 2004 onward, alot of people used the phrase "Brand Extension Era."

Do find the content of this era to be more edgy than that of the preceding Attitude era?

The Attitude era was more edgy. 2002-2008 was like a toned down Attitude era. You still had shocking stuff like Edge and Lita having live sex, but the face of the company was Cena, who began as an incredibly foul mouthed rapper and got progressively family friendly.

Where would you rank it among the other eras in WWE history? Better than which ones, inferior to which of them?
This era had many highs and lows. The brand exclusive PPV's resulted in fans paying to watch matches that couldn't main event Superstars. Smackdown was especially low on star power at times. At the same time, alot of classic moments happened in this time period.

I guess I would rank it as my favorite era. Whenever I watch a random PPV, it's usually from this era.