We should be grateful about the PPVs cards that we are getting

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

The last years WWE has been putting on some very very solid cards. Wrestlemanias usually have 3-4 matches to look forward to, that are must watch, Summerslam also has had many solid cards. Even Money In The Bank. This year's Money In The Bank PPV would be equal to a Wrestlemania card back in 1995.

Don't believe me? Just check the cards back then, check every Wrestlemania card, especially those from 1993 to 2000.

WM 9: Yokozuna vs Bret Hart was the main match. The rest of the card. Tatanka vs HBK is the only match you'll find interesting and maybe Luger vs Perfect. Summerslam and MITB this year definately were better than this one.

WM 10: That is probably a worthy Mania. 2 five star matches and 2 championship matches.

WM 11: Hart faces a 55-year old Backlund, Diesel faces HBK and Lawrence Taylor gets the main event. Jeez. It seems like fans back then were way less butt hurt than today. Imagine this card in 2016. "Backlund should retire, Hart is the star, he shouldn't be facing that guy". "What? HBK loses to this 7-foot-tall pile of crap? You can't wrestle Diesel. Booo" "Lawrence Taylor gets the main event? Worst Mania ever". "Why didn't Diesel put over the up and coming star?".

WM 12: "Piper vs Goldust? Piss break!" "Great way to bury talent WWF! Why didn't Warrior put over HHH here?" "So, HHH got an one minute match, so that we can sit through 1 hour of rest holds?"

WM 13: We all know what we would have said about this one. "Blood? In the WWF? Is Austin hurt?" "Thank god that match saved us from the worst Wrestlemania of all time, who thought Undertaker vs Sid was a good idea?"
Extra: "Great way to completely throw the prestige of the Royal Rumble match out of the window WWF!"

WM 14: "Great way to bury Owen Hart WWF!" "Who is Kane and why does he get handed a co-main event spot? He must pay his dues first" "Predictable main event. Austin looks weak with that fast count". Plus seriously, Kane vs Undertaker was thought to be such a high drawing match?
Extra: Undertaker should have lost to Kane, aka Cena should have lost to Wyatt.

WM 15: Where do I even begin with this one. Talk about a complete train wreck from start to bottom. I can't even imagine all the hate this card would get today. Seriously.

WM 16: Another train wreck. Not a singles match. No women's match. McMahon again in the spotlight. Rock losing (I think fans would cheer that today). Big Show in the main event.

Just to make things clear. This is not a hate thread. Who doesn't love the attitude era?
But I hear people complaining and saying stuff like "Boring card" and stuff like that. Have you noticed that for the last 15 years, every WM card has like 3-4 big time matches? Back then, there was 1 big time match and the rest was midcard or upper midcard at best. Summerslam this year was stacked and Wrestlemania 32, even without Cena and Orton, still was a strong card. Wrestlemania 29, which was one of the strongest cards ever, having HHH, Punk, Taker, Lesnar, Cena, Rock, Y2J and Orton in it got hate for the matches that we were getting.
The last two Summerslams could have easily been Wrestlemanai cards in 1996.

All I'm saying is, don't hate the cards, be grateful that we have the opportunity to watch all these amazing matches and shows WWE has been delivering.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Yeah, but I have a fondness those cards with their filler, dross and few memorable matches. In face I can probably remember what matches happened on each one and in what order, give or take. With PPV events now you get, uhh, filler, dross and few memorable moments, but now Big 4 events merge into B shows and you struggle to remember which matches happened where.

 

[Woodstuff]

In all fairness, if the internet was as big in the 90s as it is today, there would have been plenty fans back then saying exactly what you said in the OP. And just like today, those fans would've been impossible to please. Constantly changing their opinion of certain wrestlers, never satisfied with what WWF gave them.

"WWF is sinking, they've already lost their biggest stars to WCW"
"Austin does basically the same thing every week/is shoved down our throats"
"the roster is paper thin/full of jobber tag teams"
"the new WWF title belt sucks. They should've kept the classic design"
"wasting TV time with worthless feuds like the Hardcore and European jobber titles"
"anyone that isn't Austin or DX is booked like a chump" etc.

I think more than anything, this post points out that no matter how much a smark criticises a PPV/booking decision in WWE, it never really makes a difference in the grand scheme of things. Let the nerds bitch and cry, in 20 years people will be using todays cards as examples of why the next generation of underachieving losers should quit complaining and just watch the damn show.

 

[The Brain]

I don't know if you actually believe all the things you've written or if you're just saying this is what fans today would have said. I think I understand your intended point but I will argue against some of the comments here and you can let me know if you actually believe it if you want.

WM 11: Hart faces a 55-year old Backlund, Diesel faces HBK and Lawrence Taylor gets the main event. Jeez. It seems like fans back then were way less butt hurt than today. Imagine this card in 2016. "Backlund should retire, Hart is the star, he shouldn't be facing that guy". "What? HBK loses to this 7-foot-tall pile of crap? You can't wrestle Diesel. Booo" "Lawrence Taylor gets the main event? Worst Mania ever". "Why didn't Diesel put over the up and coming star?".

Maybe you're intentionally exaggerating as a humorous way to get your point across but Backlund was 46 at WM11. Same age as Triple H at WM32 earlier this year. Match was still awful but just thought that was worth mentioning. As for why Diesel didn't put over the up and coming star, it was because Diesel was the up and coming star. Sure Michaels was younger, but Diesel had only turned face and become champion four months earlier. He was the one the company was going to push. And he was also more over than Michaels at the time. Besides, Vince wasn't going to have a heel beat a face for the title at mania at that time.

WM 12: "Piper vs Goldust? Piss break!" "Great way to bury talent WWF! Why didn't Warrior put over HHH here?" "So, HHH got an one minute match, so that we can sit through 1 hour of rest holds?"

Goldust was originally supposed to wrestle Razor Ramon but Razor got suspended. There was nothing wrong with working with Piper at mania and it certainly did not bury Goldust. As for Warrior putting over HHH, that's just ridiculous. Warrior was one of the most popular wrestlers ever and returning after three years. He wasn't coming just to put other guys over. He was coming to take back his spot. Of course we know it didn't work out but to think lower mid card HHH was going to go over Warrior after hyping his return for weeks is crazy.

WM 13: We all know what we would have said about this one. "Blood? In the WWF? Is Austin hurt?"

That's what people did say about that one because blood in the WWF never took place before this match either.

WM 14: "Great way to bury Owen Hart WWF!" "Who is Kane and why does he get handed a co-main event spot? He must pay his dues first" "Predictable main event. Austin looks weak with that fast count". Plus seriously, Kane vs Undertaker was thought to be such a high drawing match?
Extra: Undertaker should have lost to Kane, aka Cena should have lost to Wyatt.

So in 1996 Warrior should have put over HHH but in 1998 Owen was buried for losing to HHH? No, HHH was clearly a future star at that point and Owen rightfully put him over. Undertaker vs. Kane was a high drawing match. People waited months for that one and the hype for that one was part of why that was such a successful mania.

WM 15: Where do I even begin with this one. Talk about a complete train wreck from start to bottom. I can't even imagine all the hate this card would get today. Seriously.

I won't defend it. Worst mania ever.

WM 16: Another train wreck. Not a singles match. No women's match. McMahon again in the spotlight. Rock losing (I think fans would cheer that today). Big Show in the main event.

Yeah this one was kind of a mess too. You're right though. Things got more consistently better in regard to mania after this one. I think this was the last bad mania until WM25.

Again, I don't know if all those things are your actual opinion or if I'm arguing against the hypothetical so you can respond accordingly if you choose.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

The last years WWE has been putting on some very very solid cards. Wrestlemanias usually have 3-4 matches to look forward to, that are must watch, Summerslam also has had many solid cards. Even Money In The Bank. This year's Money In The Bank PPV would be equal to a Wrestlemania card back in 1995.

Wrestlemania has good card and matches when they acctually put effort in program. You can just look newer Wrestlemanias like 27 and 32. 27 is regarded as one of worst ever and 32 is kinda lackluster with all that injuries before it and overall quality of matches. Even 31 could be regarded as kinda lackluster with matches like HHH defeating Sting in his first ever match just so they could crap on WCW again, Undertaker vs Lame Wyatt and having mainevent match with every fan crapped on it beforehand and needed to be saved with MiTB cash in.

So you see, its not about if its old or new, its just effort they put into it.

 

[FromGlasgow]

Tatanka vs HBK is the only match you'll find interesting

Is it? I have great memories of Wrestlemania 9 as it was the first PPV I watched live and as a child I very much enjoyed the whole card so thank you for telling me the only match that I now found interesting about it and also which matches I only liked from the other PPV's you mentioned.
We get the point you dislike anything wrestling before 2000 but I'm not going to get into a debate about which era was better as it all comes down to personal opinion but your contradicting yourself telling others not to put down todays PPV's while being negative and telling me not only how bad you think pre 2000 was but also how bad I think pre 2000 wrestling was which is quite insulting. I have great memories growing up watching your so called crappy PPV's and I also still enjoy todays wrestling even though I don't have the same free time I had back then to watch it all, Nobody is forcing you to watch old PPV's so I can't understand your anger towards pre 2000 wrestling.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Is it? I have great memories of Wrestlemania 9 as it was the first PPV I watched live and as a child I very much enjoyed the whole card so thank you for telling me the only match that I now found interesting about it and also which matches I only liked from the other PPV's you mentioned.
We get the point you dislike anything wrestling before 2000 but I'm not going to get into a debate about which era was better as it all comes down to personal opinion but your contradicting yourself telling others not to put down todays PPV's while being negative and telling me not only how bad you think pre 2000 was but also how bad I think pre 2000 wrestling was which is quite insulting. I have great memories growing up watching your so called crappy PPV's and I also still enjoy todays wrestling even though I don't have the same free time I had back then to watch it all, Nobody is forcing you to watch old PPV's so I can't understand your anger towards pre 2000 wrestling.

You missed my point.

As I said, we can't argue about those eras. OF COURSE THEY ARE EPIC AND HYPE.

What I am saying is, that we shouldn't crap on today's cards, because WWE is giving out 3-4 main event matches, multiple title matches and lots of good wrestling, whereas back in the day you just had 1 main attraction match and the rest was midcard.

Also the post is meant to be kind of sarcastic towards the classic Internet fan, so please don't get angry

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

I don't know if you actually believe all the things you've written or if you're just saying this is what fans today would have said. I think I understand your intended point but I will argue against some of the comments here and you can let me know if you actually believe it if you want.



Maybe you're intentionally exaggerating as a humorous way to get your point across but Backlund was 46 at WM11. Same age as Triple H at WM32 earlier this year. Match was still awful but just thought that was worth mentioning. As for why Diesel didn't put over the up and coming star, it was because Diesel was the up and coming star. Sure Michaels was younger, but Diesel had only turned face and become champion four months earlier. He was the one the company was going to push. And he was also more over than Michaels at the time. Besides, Vince wasn't going to have a heel beat a face for the title at mania at that time.



Goldust was originally supposed to wrestle Razor Ramon but Razor got suspended. There was nothing wrong with working with Piper at mania and it certainly did not bury Goldust. As for Warrior putting over HHH, that's just ridiculous. Warrior was one of the most popular wrestlers ever and returning after three years. He wasn't coming just to put other guys over. He was coming to take back his spot. Of course we know it didn't work out but to think lower mid card HHH was going to go over Warrior after hyping his return for weeks is crazy.



That's what people did say about that one because blood in the WWF never took place before this match either.



So in 1996 Warrior should have put over HHH but in 1998 Owen was buried for losing to HHH? No, HHH was clearly a future star at that point and Owen rightfully put him over. Undertaker vs. Kane was a high drawing match. People waited months for that one and the hype for that one was part of why that was such a successful mania.



I won't defend it. Worst mania ever.



Yeah this one was kind of a mess too. You're right though. Things got more consistently better in regard to mania after this one. I think this was the last bad mania until WM25.

Again, I don't know if all those things are your actual opinion or if I'm arguing against the hypothetical so you can respond accordingly if you choose.

Brain of course they are not my opinions. Maybe they are, but I'm clearly exaggerating. Just wanted to point out that fans today would probably react that way back then.

I think if you compare the cards now and then, you'll see it, too.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

My point is: Today with Cena, Undertaker, Triple H, Orton, Y2J and Lesnar, plus Reigns, Rollins, Owens, Styles, Ambrose, Bray Wyatt and Finn Balor, we can have cards with 5-6 big time matches, because I just mentioned the 12-13 big names in the company right now and more names are bound to come.

We get stacked cards and of course I'm not hating on the past. I'm just using the past to hate at the haters of today.

 

[L@RISANO]

I don't think today's match cards are the problem at all. I think the in-ring side of things is as good or better than ever.

Where today's stuff fails is at the storyline element and the booking that goes with it. Take for example Mania 32, which was a clear F-U from the WWE that made no sense whatsoever, tho the actual match card even with big stars injured was still pretty good, lMO.

 

[Radical]

Indeed, PPV cards have been generally pretty good lately. Definitely there are a few dud matches that really had little to no build and/or are executed poorly when they do happen but considering the number of PPVs WWE has every year we should be pretty grateful there are a few really solid matches on each card.

Because I hope people are realizing what WWE is going to be doing relatively shortly. They are going to be producing much more PPVs in a year.

Why? Not because they want to have lackluster cards but because they want to be able to say more about what a 'great value' the WWE Network is. They can say "Wow, for only $9.99 a month you get TWO (or THREE, or FOUR) PPVs!"

Soon, it won't be about having a stacked card. Indeed, a PPV WILL be like a episode of SmackDown or Raw but the goal will be to have something significant happen to further the story. And it will mean feuds will go over maybe 3 or 4 PPVs since there will be more.


So be thankful for the stacked cards in the past because future PPVs won't have as much time to get built up as they will just be stepping stones towards a bigger match and another way to try and get more people subscribed to the Network.

The main goal of WWE seems to be do get people to subscribe to the Network and they probably feel the way to do that is overload it with PPVs.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Indeed, PPV cards have been generally pretty good lately. Definitely there are a few dud matches that really had little to no build and/or are executed poorly when they do happen but considering the number of PPVs WWE has every year we should be pretty grateful there are a few really solid matches on each card.

Because I hope people are realizing what WWE is going to be doing relatively shortly. They are going to be producing much more PPVs in a year.

Why? Not because they want to have lackluster cards but because they want to be able to say more about what a 'great value' the WWE Network is. They can say "Wow, for only $9.99 a month you get TWO (or THREE, or FOUR) PPVs!"

Soon, it won't be about having a stacked card. Indeed, a PPV WILL be like a episode of SmackDown or Raw but the goal will be to have something significant happen to further the story. And it will mean feuds will go over maybe 3 or 4 PPVs since there will be more.


So be thankful for the stacked cards in the past because future PPVs won't have as much time to get built up as they will just be stepping stones towards a bigger match and another way to try and get more people subscribed to the Network.

The main goal of WWE seems to be do get people to subscribe to the Network and they probably feel the way to do that is overload it with PPVs.

That seems like a harsh reality, but hopefully all the great talent from NXT like Nakamura, Joe and Roode will get to the main roster and the gaps will close a little bit.

Although then it would be interesting to see where WWE puts all its talent at their multibrand PPVs like the big 4. I expect many ladder matches and battle royals from here on.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

I don't think today's match cards are the problem at all. I think the in-ring side of things is as good or better than ever.

Where today's stuff fails is at the storyline element and the booking that goes with it. Take for example Mania 32, which was a clear F-U from the WWE that made no sense whatsoever, tho the actual match card even with big stars injured was still pretty good, lMO.

Summerslam, too. It seems like WWE won't let us have it both ways.