Nostalgia: Drawing Comparisons from today’s WWE to 2003 WWE

[Ruthless-RKO]

Recently I have been watching some old WWE stuff from 2002-2003. I was bored and was feeling nostalgic as my peak as a wrestling fan was during that period. After watching many video’s (especially from 2003) I realized that 2003 is very similar to now; WWE is relying on nostalgia. 2003 was filled with the return of Goldberg, Kevin Nash (from injury), Scott Steiner (albeit he returned in 2002 but it was late 2002 so I will still count it), The Rock and Stone Cold (as GM). Now in today’s WWE we have had the return of The Rock, Brock Lenser, Paul Heyman, Chris Jericho, Kevin Nash and Triple H. 2003 in terms of business wasn’t as well compared to the attitude era. WWE was hoping that Goldberg would be a big ratings draw but ended up being a flop. Comparing to now, Brock Lesner I’m sure was brought in for the same reason but (in my opinion) is close to being considered a flop. Then we have Stone Cold as GM who was booked so strong and was such a huge focal point on RAW that there was no upward mobility for the mid-card. Now as a 9 year-old, I loved it but looking back it was really obnoxious. Kevin Nash and Scott Steiner came back and hogged the main event and produced garbage matches and stupid storylines. Creative was not in a slump but was just utter shit, just like current day WWE of how unimaginative creative is. Nostalgia was fading and people were tuning out even though the workrate was higher than ever.


The main reason why I bring this up is to question WWE’s use of Nostalgia. We all love it because it brings us back to the feeling we got when we were kids. I have been a firm believer that Nostalgia will never be better than something new. That is why I wasn’t keen on The Rock coming back. I love The Rock but after the Nostalgia faded away I was more excited about the future young stars than The Rock vs John Cena. All those names they brought back in 2003 didn’t help long term and ratings continued to plummet. We are seeing that now as the ratings are below 3.0 and WWE has this urge to bring back old stars to “pop” a rating. Triple H comes back and how has the whole show stroking his ego to raise ratings. It didn’t work. Brock Lenser came back, ratings are still the same. The Rock came back and the ratings before Wrestlemania were around 2.9 and 3.1.

I do think there is a place for nostalgia. When Rikishi came back and squashed Heath Slater, I marked out. It was great but that was all I wanted. Booker T returning at the royal rumble and having a match with Cody was fun but that’s all I really cared for. For a one off match, maybe but it shouldn’t overshadow guys we will still be in the company after.

My questions for you guys are,


Are you a fan of past wrestlers coming back via one-off matches or a short stint?


In what capacity do you think they should be used?


And, is it smart long-term to bring them back?


This has been something I have been thinking about for a long time and I want to hear your guy’s thoughts on it.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Today's WWE is nowhere near 2003 WWE. WWE in 2003 was filled with talent that was a mix of established stars and young stars. Young stars included Brock Lesnar, Edge,John Cena,Randy Orton,Chris Benoit, Christian, Eddie Guerrero, Batista, Shelton Benjamin, etc. Tag-Team division was stacked with teams like Dudley Boys, La Resistance,etc even Divas division was filled with talented performers. Established stars included HHH in his prime ,Goldberg,Kurt Angle,Booker-T, Chris Jericho,Kane,Kevin Nash,etc. WWE in 2003 had the most star-studded and stacked roster.

Today's roster is so thin and is nowhere near the WWE roster of 2003.

and to your question, it isn't the fan's job to worry about what is good for long term or short term, thats Vince McMahon's job.

 

[Jimmy Carter]

What exactly makes 2003 particularly comparable to 2012? Why not 2002, or 2004, when we also saw some significant returns and debuts? 2003 happend to occur within a timeframe when many notable ex-WCW returned, though that does not necessarily point to "nostalgia marketing" so much as luck and convenient scheduling. If anything, 2003 is a year like many, showing that WWE will always look to capitalize on talent that promises big draws. This trend speaks more to the company's promotion of popular, established talent over developing superstars. How is that any different from other years?

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Today's WWE is nowhere near 2003 WWE. WWE in 2003 was filled with talent that was a mix of established stars and young stars. Young stars included Brock Lesnar, Edge,John Cena,Randy Orton,Chris Benoit, Christian, Eddie Guerrero, Batista, Shelton Benjamin, etc. Tag-Team division was stacked with teams like Dudley Boys, La Resistance,etc even Divas division was filled with talented performers. Established stars included HHH in his prime ,Goldberg,Kurt Angle,Booker-T, Chris Jericho,Kane,Kevin Nash,etc. WWE in 2003 had the most star-studded and stacked roster.

Today's roster is so thin and is nowhere near the WWE roster of 2003.

Yeah.......No.

1. The tag team division wasn't any better then than it is now. Nobody cared about La Resistance. The Dudleys mystique had long since worn off. Storm and Regal were boring. Kane and RVD were pretty much the only bright spot and that was because it was decreed that the IC title should be no more. Great job with that one, Vince. Same reason why Benoit and Guerrero were in the tag team title scene where they could have done much better.

2. Edge was injured for all of 2003 except for one month.

3. Goldberg was a disappointment, Steiner was god-awful. Nash proved me wrong by being much worse than Steiner. Jericho didn't do shit which is to be expected when you're behind HHH. Booker T was in the same spot he always has been in except for a few months in 2006. I'll take Cena, Punk, Bryan, Sheamus, Del Rio, and Orton over the crap I saw in 2003.

 

[Outsider-Jim]

2003-04 WWE season was where the SmackDown! brand was filled with the young and more in prime stars such as Lesnar, Angle, Guerrero, Benoit, Cena, Mysterio etc. and Raw had the much older guys like Michaels, HHH, Flair, Goldberg etc. it was alot more refreshing to watch SmackDown! and alot more entertaining than Raw at that time mostly because the shows stars were exclusive to their brands.

They need to either go back to having Two different shows with their own respective stars and titles or go back to the old attitude way where everyone on the roster would be on both shows cause this whole "put Raw over as the main show and leave SD to just be abit better than Superstars" persona sucks.

 

[wooooo]

I'll take Cena, Punk, Bryan, Sheamus, Del Rio, and Orton over the crap I saw in 2003.

I agree with the rest of your points but I can't with this.

It depends how you look at it, HHH's boring domination of Raw in 03 was crap but Smackdown had Angle, Benoit, Lesnar and Taker and I'd definitely take Angle and Lesnar's summer long feud over Del Rio/ Sheamus anyday.

03 also saw Orton and Cena start to rise and I feel they were much more entertaining back then than they are now.

 

[#MrScissorsKick]

Man alot of haters on this board hating on 2002-2003 WWE...

To be honest, I'm in agreement with what was said in the op. I thought 02-03 WWE was much more overall...."better" than what it is today.... meaning, talent, storylines, management was just much more entertaining than it is today.. now...on to the OP's questions:

Are you a fan of past wrestlers coming back via one-off matches or a short stint?

Yes. It can/would/will boost ratings - short term. However I'm not Vince McMahon so you'd have to be smart to where and who you'd want to come back and return. Honestly if a past wrestler came back for 1 show, i'd hope it would be at wrestlemania, aka the biggest show in wrestling. If the past wrestler coming back was in a short stint, I'd hope it would be sort of what Brock Lesnar is doing now, appearing on limited dates...

In what capacity do you think they should be used?

As i said above, it depends. I would think that the WWE would use the past wrestlers in the aspect of Wrestlemania and/or use them like Brock Lesnar is doing now..

And, is it smart long-term to bring them back?

Depends on who it is. Would the WWE fans want someone who made small impact in the WWE (someone like Heidenreich, Spanky, Tyson Tomko...etc. <-I'm not sayin those 3 made small impact but they werent main eventers) i would think not. But maybe they could be a jobber and help put someone over. Now if it was a former wrestler who had a big impact on the WWE, i would hope they would use them as much as possible. I know the WWE isn't going to force the Rock to go full-time, Goldberg doesn't seem interested, KEvin Nash is done, so who would that leave? I don't know, but im not in that position to make that decision. I wish the WWE would make like a reunion PPV or what not, between Royal Rumble/Wrestlemania so then the former wrestlers could get a feeling and interact with the current wrestlers.

 

[King Patrick Star]

Are you a fan of past wrestlers coming back via one-off matches or a short stint?
I am a fan of past Wrestlers coming back via one – off matches and short stints. Let’s face it, it was just better in retrospect.

In what capacity do you think they should be used?
The Hall Of Famers / Legends should be used to put new talent over and of course the nostalgia portion of the return doesn’t hurt a thing.

And, is it smart long-term to bring them back?
Of course it smart long – term to bring them back. The past Stars are already established. There’s not much work that needs to be done except for the older guys learning who the newer guys are.

Let’s break this down by Champions of then vs. Champions of now.

The Champions of WWE as of September 18

WWE Champion
2003 – Brock Lesnar
2012 – CM Punk
2003 gets my vote here, only because the idea of Brock Lesnar vs. Triple H / Goldberg was a dream match of mine at the time.

World Champion
2003 – Triple H / Goldberg (3 days later)
2012 – Sheamus
See above.

Intercontinental Champion
2003 – Christian / Rob Van Dam (11 days later)
2012 – The Miz
Come on, Christian or Rob Van Dam made better Intercontinental Champions than what the Miz is doing right now. Then again, the Miz just started his run.

United States Champion
2003 – Eddie Guerrero
2012 – Antonio Cesaro
See above. Plus it’s Eddie.

Unified WWE World Tag Team Champions
2003 – World Tag Team Champions, La Resistance / Dudley Boyz (3 days later) and WWE Tag Team Champions, Los Guerreros
2012 – Kane and Daniel Bryan
Again, I’d pick the Dudley Boys and Los Guerreros over any makeshift team, but Kane and Daniel Bryan did just start their run as well.

WWE Women’s / Divas Champion
2003 – Molly Holly
2012 – Eve
See above.

Based off of just the list, I would say September 18, 2003 was a better time than September 18, 2012 in the Universe. Only time will tell how great today’s current Champions’ runs will end up.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The roster in 2003 was a lot heavier in "names" but that does not necesarrily translate to well used talent. Indeed it's a little "fat"

In 2003 you had a lot more talent being wasted. For every Goldberg, Nash, Steiner and Triple H in those main event slots you had a Mark Henry, toiling in a team with Rodney Mack as part of "Thuggin' and Buggin'" or you had guys like 3 Minute Warning, Billy and Chuck wasting air time while some with real talent like Rico, Shelton Benjamin and Jeff Hardy toiled... even Booker T. was made to look like the weakest ever challenger at Wrestlemania, at no time did anyone think he was going to beat Trips, thus nobody cared.

Today's roster is a lot leaner, there are fewer "big names" around, those that are are only part time but the roster itself is perhaps healthier than it was those 10 years ago. People are much more interchangeable than they were then, someone like Santino can be in the Elimination Chamber, then go to being US champ. Many of the mid card guys in 2003 were mid card for life... The Hurricane or Lance Storm might get a title match but they were never going to win it. Once that fat got trimmed a little, some of those guys got their turns and thus became names.

Men like Henry, Christian, Booker and Jericho have now been around so long and had such success that their name is as big as Nash's or Steiners was back then and they are, when active happy to put people over unlike their predecessors. The big names like Rock and Brock come back as and when and it works because the rest of the roster is now only a maximum of 3 steps down from them.

Today most of the "mid card" could easily be a World champion in a year if WWE got behind them.

Barrett, Rhodes, Ziggler, Ryder, Ryback, Kofi, McIntyre, Truth even guys like Cesaro and Sandow with the right feud. Today we talk of newcomers/NXT stars like Dean Ambrose as main eventers already, in 2003 when it was "Deacon" Batista few ever saw him becoming anything at all...

So yeah, you're then left with guys like Prime Time Players, DiBiase etc who are going to be the lower card but even then, they're only a shock MITB or title win away.

 

[HBsam31]

Are you a fan of past wrestlers coming back via one-off matches or a short stint?
Yeah i think this can be a good idea. I mean if they draw, and people pay to see them then why not.

In what capacity do you think they should be used?
I actually like the way Lesner has been used. Just for big matches, and the lead up to them. He isn't taking too much time from today's star, and I think is being used well.

And, is it smart long-term to bring them back?
Yes I think it can only bring more interest to wrestling when some of the old stars are brought back. It mixes things up a bit and gives us something different to see.

2003 was not one of my favorite times in wrestling that I can remember. The roster was stack, but i remember a lot of Billy and Chuck and MR. America with Zach Gowen going on. That may have been 2002 though. honestly I think we are a little better off with what is going on in today's WWE.