1998 and 1999- Underrated years in terms of in ring quality?

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

While no one disputes that 1998 and 1999 were two very profitable years as far as making money is concerned, there are quite a few who feel that the in ring action was crap during this period. Most people give various reasons for this with the more popular ones being that it was an era booked by Vince Russo( wasn't 1997 as well?) and that the Attitude Era was all about sizzle and little steak.

But looking back, I feel that this criticism is totally unwarranted. Yes 1997 was a better year and 2000 and 2001 were better as well but the action in these two years is nothing to be scoffed at. Let's start with WM 14. There are undoubtedly two very good matches on the card in the form of Taker vs Kane and HBK vs Austin. Rock vs Shamrock and HHH vs Owen are also decent. From there on we have Austin putting on great matches with Foley in a lead up to the feud with Undertaker. The midcard was in good hands with HHH, Rock, Owen Hart and on occasions even the likes of Shamrock, Val Venis and D'Lo Brown producing good matches. Rock and HHH in particular had a ladder match at SummerSlam which proved that you don't have to be a highflyer to excel in this sort of an environment. Austin vs Undertaker at the same PPV had a match that may have failed to meet up to the people's expectation but was solid nonetheless. Then Undertaker had his famous match with Foley which led to a Foley face turn and that led to him having very good matches with The Rock, which continued well into 1999.

1999 was the year that Austin and Rock faced each other for the first time at the Main Event stage and the result was very good as well. Austin continued having good matches with Undertaker and HHH who turned heel at this point. Even when Austin took time off WWF continued on its merry way without skipping a beat with Rock taking up Austin's place as if he was always there and going on to have good matches with HHH. And contrary to what a lotof people believe the tag team revolution took place in the WWF at this time when E&C united with the Hardyz to have a best of 7 series.

So why does this era get heat in terms of in ring quality on the internet? Well, for one thing I feel that even though this era had great wrestlers, they were all mostly brawlers and that is something that the crowd may have gotten tired of seeing. The other reason I feel is that perception is bigger than reality in pro wrestling. And it is the smarks that get worked the most often by this simple fact.

Austin and Rock are two very good wrestlers who will never be acclaimed so by a vast majority of the wrestling fans because they were so good on the mic. Despite the fact that both guys have participated in great matches, people would always believe that they were great mic guys with average ring skills. On the other end of the spectrum you have a Bret Hart or a Michaels who are said to be great in ring workers and therefore any year that is associated with them should have great matches, right? Well that's not true at all.

Consider 1995. A shit year for the business but people would always say that it was a year of great matches. Well, honestly speaking there is only one great match in the form of the ladder rematch between Shawn and Ramon. You have a couple of good matches in that year as well but they are few and far between. But with Shawn and Bret in the roster at that time everybody has been led to believe that it was a great year for in ring work. Same with 1993. The roster had Bret, HBK, Savage, Flair, Dibiase and Perfect and yet the year was not a productive one for good wrestling matches. But, does anyone say so? 1998 and 1999 are actually better years than 1993 and 1995. There are a quite a few other years as well but I guess you get the point that I have been trying to make.

So what do you think? Are 1998 and 1999 underrated in terms of quality wrestling matches? Give reasons for agreeing or for disagreeing.

 

[Rockyfolifebo!!!]

Definitely! When you think of the AE, you think of Austin stunning the boss, or The Rock making fun of someone, or DX's pranks. You don't think of classic wrestling bouts, with the exception of Rock vs Austin. The actual "wrestling machines" didn't come until about 2000. Think about it when The Radicals and Jericho (99) and Angle came out, they were LEGIT wrestling machines! Some didn't have the mic skills of The Rock or character of Austin, but their wrestling skills were there. '98 and '99 are overlooked because there wasn't those type of wrestlers, everything revolved around characters and gimmicks.

And NO disrespect to the Attitude Era, I LOVE it!!!

 

[TellMeWhy]

In terms of WWE and their hardcore matches, I'd say WWE in 1998-1999 wasn't all that great in match quality. I would say WCW in those years had the better match quality out of the 2 in those years. From WCW's midcard, cruiserweight, and tag division, they were always solid in those years. WWE had the better theatrics though but I give WCW the edge in wrestling quality hands down.

 

[RJJ]

No, I don't think it's underrated when it comes to in ring quality. To be honest with you, there is no such thing called "Wrestling", at that time, it was all about "brawling", not because they didn't have good wrestlers(Austin, HHH, Taker, rock as rocky maivia), but because the fans didn't want to see superstars "wrestle", they wanted them to fight. I remember when kurt first came in the company, he was putting on some great performances, but because it was the AE the fans booed him and chanted "boring!". Benoit-Angle WM X7 is a very good example, yes it was in 2001, but still happened during the AE.

Now as far as the overall in ring quality, yes, you maybe right. You see you don't need to be a great mat or technical wrestler to put on some great matches. Actually, sometimes being a good technical wrestler doesn't make you a good in ring performer. It takes in ring phsycology, generalship, and athleticism, and match building, to be a great in ring performer. Take austin and rock for example, they were not the best wrestlers in the world, but they were masters when it comes to telling a story and getting the crowd involved, and that's why they were able to put on some classic matches throughout thier careers.

 

[The Brain]

It’s all a matter of personal preference. I’m one of the guys who is very critical of the match quality of 1998 and 1999. I thought the New Generation and the first couple years after Attitude were far superior. I prefer the style that Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels used to deliver. The most memorable matches of 1998 and 1999 are sloppy brawls or matches full of shock spots. I would much rather see Bret Hart and Mr. Perfect in a smooth mat based classic than see Rock hit Mankind in the head with a chair eleven times. The thing that bothered me most about 1998 and 1999 is how the main event matches hardly ever took place in the ring for the majority of the match. Every time it ended up as a brawl in the aisle, on the stage, or in the crowd. Every match was the same. The only difference was the set design which gave opponents a different looking structure into which they could throw each other.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

It’s all a matter of personal preference. I’m one of the guys who is very critical of the match quality of 1998 and 1999. I thought the New Generation and the first couple years after Attitude were far superior. I prefer the style that Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels used to deliver. The most memorable matches of 1998 and 1999 are sloppy brawls or matches full of shock spots. I would much rather see Bret Hart and Mr. Perfect in a smooth mat based classic than see Rock hit Mankind in the head with a chair eleven times. The thing that bothered me most about 1998 and 1999 is how the main event matches hardly ever took place in the ring for the majority of the match. Every time it ended up as a brawl in the aisle, on the stage, or in the crowd. Every match was the same. The only difference was the set design which gave opponents a different looking structure into which they could throw each other.

I think I did list the repetitiveness of the matches as a reason for why some people blame the match quality of this era but all the same it does show that people wrongly rate brawling as an inferior style of wrestling. After all, no one says that the matches on ROH are repetitive. Hart and HBK are probably more repetitive in the ring as compared to Cena and Austin and yet no one would say so. Because it is a wrongly concieved notion that brawling is not wrestling.

Brawling in a nutshell is probably the most effective style in wrestling. Tell me if a babyface were to make a comeback, which offense would draw a bigger pop. A couple of stiff punches or a hammerlock? It is no surprise that the biggest wrestling stars have always been brawlers. Also if you are saying that the matches in this period were mindless brawls, I shudder to even think what you might say about ECW. The Rock/ Mankind I Quit match was not a mindless brawl. Rock hitting Mankind with all those chairshots made sense even though for Mankind's well being it would have probably been better that had he not taken all of them on the head. Mankind was this guy who would never quit and you had to do something drastic to make him quit. Hence Rock's actions made sense. It also must be noted that Mankind had this reputation of never quitting much before the Attitude Era.

Even the much criticized "going into the crowd or the aisle or backstage" part of the arguement could be very easily explained. Most wrestlers in this era were brawlers who felt comfortable in this environment. Hence they would try to take thematch into this environment hoping that they could garner an advantage.

The matches of this era were not sloppy or mindless brawl. The sloppy part is an even more ridiculous statement because none among Austin, Rock, HHH, Mankind or Undertaker are sloppy workers. The only point that you have got here is the repetitive nature of matches and if you are going to go down that route, you'll only end up opening a Pandora's box of arguements, a large number of which actually support the fact that the wrestling in this era was much underrated.

 

[Chris1-16]

1998 I agree was a pretty underrated year when it came to ringwork, the HHH/Rock Ladder Match at Summerslam 1998 was the MOTY IMO that had great psychology with Rock beating on HHH's knee throughout the match. Also the McMahons didn't actually get in the ring and wrestle yet, another plus.

1999 on the year hand was the height of the Attitude Era style, nothing about that year I call can "underrated" at all.

 

[The Brain]

I think I did list the repetitiveness of the matches as a reason for why some people blame the match quality of this era but all the same it does show that people wrongly rate brawling as an inferior style of wrestling. After all, no one says that the matches on ROH are repetitive. Hart and HBK are probably more repetitive in the ring as compared to Cena and Austin and yet no one would say so. Because it is a wrongly concieved notion that brawling is not wrestling.

I'm not rating brawling as an inferior style. I just usually prefer the mat wrestling. A brawl can very easily be entertaining and be a great match. I've liked a lot of brawls over the years. I just didn't care for many in 1998 or 1999.

Brawling in a nutshell is probably the most effective style in wrestling. Tell me if a babyface were to make a comeback, which offense would draw a bigger pop. A couple of stiff punches or a hammerlock? It is no surprise that the biggest wrestling stars have always been brawlers. Also if you are saying that the matches in this period were mindless brawls, I shudder to even think what you might say about ECW.

Again, I have no problem with a good brawl. I just think 1998 and 1999 had a lack of them. Even though I like a good brawl I like a good mat match more. Of course some stiff punches would get a better reaction than a hammerlock. However, I'd prefer to see the hammerlock and other basic moves lead up to the stiff punches and bigger impact moves. If you're a fan of ECW then you don't want to know what I think of it.

The Rock/ Mankind I Quit match was not a mindless brawl. Rock hitting Mankind with all those chairshots made sense even though for Mankind's well being it would have probably been better that had he not taken all of them on the head. Mankind was this guy who would never quit and you had to do something drastic to make him quit. Hence Rock's actions made sense. It also must be noted that Mankind had this reputation of never quitting much before the Attitude Era.

Ok the match made sense. That doesn't mean I had to like it. This match went too far. That was part of the problem I had with this era. There isn't anything wrong with trying to raise the bar, but these guys brought it to a dangerous and unnecessary level.

Even the much criticized "going into the crowd or the aisle or backstage" part of the arguement could be very easily explained. Most wrestlers in this era were brawlers who felt comfortable in this environment. Hence they would try to take thematch into this environment hoping that they could garner an advantage.

This is where the real disagreement comes in. As I've said I like a good brawl. I don't like when that brawl leaves ringside. It's ok to go outside the ring, but once it goes in the aisle, on the stage, or in the crowd it becomes boring. This is when the matches looked the same. How many different things can you do while in the crowd? What's there to do in the aisle or near the stage besides throw each other in the guard rail? Boring. Keep it around the ring.

The matches of this era were not sloppy or mindless brawl. The sloppy part is an even more ridiculous statement because none among Austin, Rock, HHH, Mankind or Undertaker are sloppy workers. The only point that you have got here is the repetitive nature of matches and if you are going to go down that route, you'll only end up opening a Pandora's box of arguements, a large number of which actually support the fact that the wrestling in this era was much underrated

That's what was so frustrating about that era. They weren't sloppy workers (Rock was a lot of the time) but they worked a sloppy style. I knew how good these guys could be in the ring so it pissed me off that they would never stay there. The Stone Cold character was a brawler. I get that. I just couldn't help but think of how good Stunning Steve was while I was watching another Austin slugfest. I didn't need to see the toughest SOB keep a guy in a chinlock. I just wanted them to stay in the ring.

 

[relentless1]

so i find it disturbing that only one person has mentioned what is blatantly obvious and that is that WCW was putting on wayy better matches in 1998 and 1999, in ring quality was crazy in WCW at that point and completely outshined WWF in that aspect.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

1999 was quite possibly the single worst in-ring year ever. You had brawling in basically every match, shitty gimmicks, bad booking and downright terrible in-ring quality. There were some good matches of course, but you had to battle your way through some real shit to get to the good stuff. I mean, outside of Rock, Foley, Austin and HHH (plus the younger guys in the last few months), very few people, if any, were having good matches on a semi-regular basis. The year is remembered well because it was all drama. The huge storyline implications of stuff like the Ministry and Austin vs. The World totally and utterly overshadow how craptacular some of the wrestling is. Terrible year for in-ring work. As for 1998, it's nowhere near as bad 99, and I can certainly live with what it has to offer.