*OFFICIAL* Old School Wrestling Discussion (New Generation & Earlier Discussion ONLY)

[D-Man]

Our posters need to know that pro-wrestling existed prior to the Attitude Era... like, really good pro-wrestling. In many ways, that product was superior to some of the garbage we watch today.

I know that the majority of Wrestlezone's posters are very young and missed these Old School Eras completely (i.e. 1st Golden Age, 2nd Golden Age, New Generation, Territories) so I figured we should create a spam thread whose discussion is geared towards these topic. Who knows, maybe the Old School advocates such as myself, the Brain, Slyfox and Gelgarin could teach you guys a few things.

So, feel free to ask us questions and discuss Old School topics in here without fear of spamming.

 

[klunderbunker]

I think I'd be counted in that list of advocates as well.

One of the major differences back then was that there wasn't always a PPV to build to and only about an hour of new WWF programming a week. This allowed for much more interesting build to PPVs (not always but most of the time) because the big stars NEVER fought for free. That's a huge change that happened mainly in the Russo era.

 

[D-Man]

Shit... how could I forget KB?!? Sorry, hoss...

As for your point, I agree. And this is where the argument about "more buildup for PPV's" stems from. Naturally, more build up equals a larger payout (in the figurative sense). But the WWE noticed that fans have the attention spans of goldfish and they've become more impatient over the years. Therefore, they need said payout ASAP or else they won't watch anymore.

 

[klunderbunker]

It doesn't even have to mean fewer PPVs. Fully Loaded 1998 was pretty much called a buildup show to Summerslam and it did fine. The problem I see with WWE today is that they have to have every PPV be THE BIGGEST SHOW EVAH!!!! This presents multiple problems, but the first of them is that it gets expensive. When I was a kid, I could buy 6 PPVs a year, or 180 dollars worth. Today, that buys three WWE PPVs. Look at the first three PPVs of the year: Rumble, Chamber, Mania. Those are all big shows and it gets hard having to pay for each one at 45 bucks a pop. Have it be No Way Out and if the buyrate is low, so be it because it saves money on Wrestlemania

 

[a0161613]

I do wonder how different the industry around the world would be if the territories hadn't gone, or if six PPVs were the norm.

 

[Remix]

Shall we post a few matches to spread the good word? I missed the pre-attitude times, but I like what little I've seen.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

If six PPV's were the norm, I don't think that much would be different. It would help build and advance storylines. Imagine if the Punk/Cena angle was spread out over four or five months. If you have two great wrestlers who can have a feud without it getting boring for a long time, then it's all for the better. Christian and Orton did it even with PPV's being three or four weeks apart.

 

[D-Man]

It doesn't even have to mean fewer PPVs. Fully Loaded 1998 was pretty much called a buildup show to Summerslam and it did fine. The problem I see with WWE today is that they have to have every PPV be THE BIGGEST SHOW EVAH!!!! This presents multiple problems, but the first of them is that it gets expensive. When I was a kid, I could buy 6 PPVs a year, or 180 dollars worth. Today, that buys three WWE PPVs. Look at the first three PPVs of the year: Rumble, Chamber, Mania. Those are all big shows and it gets hard having to pay for each one at 45 bucks a pop. Have it be No Way Out and if the buyrate is low, so be it because it saves money on Wrestlemania

There are a few factors in play here...

#1 - Inflation. The WWE can make more money with less PPV buys if they raise their prices.

#2 - They need a better distinction between which are the more important PPV's of the year without discrediting the lesser ones. Honestly, I think they already do a great job with this. The "Big Four" are still prominent (i.e. Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series, Summerslam) and the others gets good buildup. But not NEARLY as much production as the big four.

As for buildup, this is always an issue. But now they've been dragging feuds into multiple PPV's so you never know when the "blowoff" match will eventually take place in each division.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

There are a few factors in play here...

#1 - Inflation. The WWE can make more money with less PPV buys if they raise their prices.

#2 - They need a better distinction between which are the more important PPV's of the year without discrediting the lesser ones. Honestly, I think they already do a great job with this. The "Big Four" are still prominent (i.e. Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series, Summerslam) and the others gets good buildup. But not NEARLY as much production as the big four.

As for buildup, this is always an issue. But now they've been dragging feuds into multiple PPV's so you never know when the "blowoff" match will eventually take place in each division.

Do you view that as a positive or a negative?

 

[D-Man]

I do wonder how different the industry around the world would be if the territories hadn't gone, or if six PPVs were the norm.

The industry would've busted by now. Those territories would not have gained enough revenue to provide syndicated television. Eventually, if Vince hadn't done it already, he would've bought them all up just to keep the product alive.

If six PPV's were the norm, I don't think that much would be different. It would help build and advance storylines. Imagine if the Punk/Cena angle was spread out over four or five months. If you have two great wrestlers who can have a feud without it getting boring for a long time, then it's all for the better. Christian and Orton did it even with PPV's being three or four weeks apart.

This is a double-edged sword. Like I said before, fans have horrible attention spans. If you drag a feud out too long without allowing the wrestlers to have a culminating match, the majority won't stick around for the payoff.

Back in the day, the PPV market was an experiment. As it became more successful and generated major $$$, the WWE did what any other business would do with a successful concept; expansion and duplication.

 

[D-Man]

Do you view that as a positive or a negative?

Positive. I still believe that if PPV's always generate dollars, they should constantly feature the best matches and feuds that the WWE can offer at that particular time. If fans are true fans, they will buy whatever the WWE offers them if its purpose is to unveil storylines and produce results.

Remember, this business is about money, not purity. Purists will always want what's "better for the sport" while business people gear everything towards revenue... as they should.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Another thing I liked back in the day is when you had characters who were unique and played their part to perfection. That appears to be almost nonexistent now with the exception of guys like Santino and Clay.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

Were you a fan of the crazier gimmicks before the Attitude Era? Guys like Papa Shango, Repo Man, Doink etc. I know they were never "the big draws" but do you think they were crucial to the shows? Would you like to see characters like that again?

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I would love to see Doink again. I'm pretty sure kids still like clowns although I can't be certain.

 

[D-Man]

Another thing I liked back in the day is when you had characters who were unique and played their part to perfection. That appears to be almost nonexistent now with the exception of guys like Santino and Clay.

Which ones were you referring to? Guys like Jake the Snake and the Ultimate Warrior or gimmick guys like Adam Bomb and Doink?

Were you a fan of the crazier gimmicks before the Attitude Era? Guys like Papa Shango, Repo Man, Doink etc. I know they were never "the big draws" but do you think they were crucial to the shows? Would you like to see characters like that again?

Honestly, being that I lived through that era, wrestling was on a whole new wavelength back then. Gimmick characters were the norm and you basically were fans of what you were given. I can honestly say that as a young kid or an early teenager, as long as they were paired up with an interesting foe in their feuds, I viewed them as critical.

Perfect example: Wrestlemania 3 - Billy Jack Haynes vs. Hercules
No offense towards KB, but he reviewed this match last year. To put it lightly, he thought the match sucked out loud.

Now, I watched this match LIVE with my family and I can honestly say it was one of my favorite matches on the card. The reason being that I lived through its buildup. The "technical" aspect of the match didn't matter. This was a feud between two guys whose simple plot was that they were both trying to lay claim to the full nelson being their finishing maneuver. The buildup was short, yet great and the match was the exact payoff that we all expected. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time and the double-countout finish had me craving more.

My point is that characters don't matter. It's the story that makes it exciting.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Which ones were you referring to? Guys like Jake the Snake and the Ultimate Warrior or gimmick guys like Adam Bomb and Doink?

The Snake and Warrior.

 

[Shocky]

Another thread for memto bash the Attitude Era, sign me up.

 

[D-Man]

The Snake and Warrior.

LOVED them. They are exactly what made it all exciting for me. They were different... more like superheroes that didn't give you the LULZ like guys such as Doink.

Another thread for memto bash the Attitude Era, sign me up.

No way, man. I specifically made this thread to talk about the New Generation and prior. And talk about the Attitude Era is off-topic unless it has direct correlation with its former eras.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Why do you think there are so few outrageous characters like Doink and Shango these days? Is it because of the wrestlers not wanting to portray them or the audience not wanting to see them?

 

[Shocky]

That's what I mean. The golden Era is where it's at.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

LOVED them. They are exactly what made it all exciting for me. They were different... more like superheroes that didn't give you the LULZ like guys such as Doink.

I've been watching some Roberts stuff and the guy had a way of doing promos that can send chills down your spine. Warrior's stuff was so off the wall that you couldn't help but chuckle.

 

[D-Man]

Why do you think there are so few outrageous characters like Doink and Shango these days? Is it because of the wrestlers not wanting to portray them or the audience not wanting to see them?

It's because pro-wrestling has made a turn for the better by going in a more "realistic" direction. With the influx of sports like MMA, the WWE cannot continue to portray a comic book-like product. They want to create characters with REAL personalities that the audience can not only relate to but also look up to.

What do YOU think sells better in today's modern market; John Cena or a man who goes by the name of "Diesel"? From a fan's perspective, it's a comparison of a "real" man versus a "fictionary" person. I would get behind a guy that's more tangible.

That's what I mean. The golden Era is where it's at.

Yeah, that's always contained some of my favorite discussions with you.

 

[D-Man]

I've been watching some Roberts stuff and the guy had a way of doing promos that can send chills down your spine. Warrior's stuff was so off the wall that you couldn't help but chuckle.

Each "character" served a purpose and had a niche. The Warrior got you completely PUMPED before, during, and after one of his matches from his (seemingly) endless energy supply.

Jake Roberts was one of my personal all-time favorites and is one of the all-time greats because he legitimately freaked the audience out. He had a way of cutting a promo and playing a character SO well that he was able to pull the strings of your emotions. There is NO better way to invoke a response out of the pro-wrestling audience than to do this. Whether you can relate to the product, whether it legitimately scares you, or whether you find the wrestler to truly be one of your personal heroes, these are all REAL emotional responses that most of today's wrestlers cannot get out of people.

 

[SD619]

I am thinking of creating a series of threads titled 'Learning about a wrestler' where I will create threads about a few wrestlers (mostly old school and few from other promotions) and will mention what I know about the particular wrestler (in most cases, not much). I would appreciate if the more experienced posters gave their opinions about the wrestler, their best matches etc.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I also remember the IC Title being treated as a huge deal in the Golden Era. You had guys like Rude, Roberts, Savage, Piper, etc. fighting over it. They need to just eliminate the U.S. Title. The midcard today is not what it was and just having one title could hopefully improve that.