*OFFICIAL* Old School Wrestling Discussion (Attitude Era to PG Era Discussion ONLY)

[D-Man]

I assume this will be the most popular Old School spam thread in this series. Rarely, can our young posters speak about anything that has to do with "Old School" without bringing up the Attitude Era. Although wrestling existed before (and certainly after) the Attitude Era, I can probably find quite a few who disagree with that fact.

Anyway, here's a place for all of you to spam-discuss the shit out of it.

Have at it.

 

[D-Man]

Let's start this thread off the right way by discussing the birth of this era which is widely known as the moment when this happened:

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

Vince McMahon introduces the Attitude Era

[YOUTUBE]HznErMk97B4[/YOUTUBE]

Until recently, I did not realise that WWE ever officially announced a move towards an edgier product. Pretty cool.

 

[I Heart Cena]

Let's start this thread off the right way by discussing the birth of this era which is widely known as the moment when this happened:

Classic. Beautiful. lol@ the look on Hayes when SCSA says Austin 3:16.

Why the hell did Hayes change his name to Dok Hendrix anyway? What a lame name.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I remember seeing a "Pro Wrestling Insiders" DVD with Vince Russo and Ed Ferrara, and Russo is talking about Austin 3:16...

At the time, Russo was the magazine editor and came up with a black front cover, with AUSTIN 3:16 in big white letters. Vince McMahon was furious with him, saying "What the hell is Austin 3:16?!"... Russo mentions the promo that Austin cut after winning KOTR the night before, and McMahon has no idea what he was talking out.

Vince McMahon did not even realise that Stone Cold had cut one of the most legendary promos of all time after winning King Of The Ring...he didn't bother to watch it.

Crazy, when you think about it.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

It evolved into an edgier product. Vince may have announced a change in the product, but the change started long before that. There was no start and end date, even if they decided there was after it was over.

 

[D-Man]

Pushing the envelope always leads to interest by viewers. The only problem is that this proverbial balloon has to pop, eventually. That's why the Attitude Era did more harm than good to the overall product.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I find the rest of the promo apart from the "Austin 3:16 just whooped your ass" line to be underwhelming. Austin has had way better promos than this one but it's obviously more famous than most because it coined the catchphrase.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Pushing the envelope always leads to interest by viewers. The only problem is that this proverbial balloon has to pop, eventually. That's why the Attitude Era did more harm than good to the overall product.

I suppose you can look at it that way. However, I choose to see the AE as the most watch period in wrestling history. In the end, I'm not sure how that's bad for business. For one reason or another, those viewers no longer watch. It goes against common sense to blame the era with the viewers and not the era without the viewers. Just a hard pill to swallow.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I know alot of people who were of the target age range of the product during the Attitude Era and feel like they have just "grown out" of watching wrestling with the current WWE programming.

If WWE had remained in the more violent style then maybe some of those fans would still watch? Who knows.

 

[Shocky]

The WWE stayed violent, probably even more violent, up until 2006. The market was just over saturated with blood and hardcore matches. The numbers went down long before the PG era.

It also alienated an entire younger generation of fans that couldn't watch because of the negativity surrounding the business. Say what you want, but selling toys makes the WWE a shit ton of money.

The Attitude Era was necessary, but there are plenty of bad things to go along with the good. For every Steve Austin, there's a Naked Mideon.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

The Attitude Era was necessary, but there are plenty of bad things to go along with the good. For every Steve Austin, there's a Naked Mideon.

Best point yet. I see a lot of people who are truly in love with the PG era knocking the Attitude Era because they feel the need to defend something. I see a lot of AE fans bashing a product they probably never gave a chance in the first place. Both were necessary.

 

[klunderbunker]

Amen to that. I wrote an article a few months ago about the AE vs. the PG. It's hilarious how bad things were in 1999. The thing was, Nitro was just so much worse that the bad Raw stuff looked great by comparison.

 

[I Heart Cena]

1999 was bad in your eyes. But in the people's eyes, it was pretty damn good. just look at the ratings.

And you can't compare naked Mideon to SCSA. Naked Mideon happened only a few times. SCSA's awesome entertainment happened much more often. The AE just plain owns, no one can dispute that. It was good for the biz, but now it's over. But it will live forever off of people's recordings of it.

For those who want hardcore, u have CZW nowadays.

 

[klunderbunker]

1999 was bad in your eyes. But in the people's eyes, it was pretty damn good. just look at the ratings.

And you can't compare naked Mideon to SCSA. Naked Mideon happened only a few times. SCSA's awesome entertainment happened much more often. The AE just plain owns, no one can dispute that. It was good for the biz, but now it's over. But it will live forever off of people's recordings of it.

For those who want hardcore, u have CZW nowadays.

Actually I can dispute that. It turned the show into a circus rather than a wrestling program. It's probably the worst thing that's ever happened to wrestling.

Regarding CZW, we're talking about wrestling here. Stay in the right section.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Amen to that. I wrote an article a few months ago about the AE vs. the PG. It's hilarious how bad things were in 1999. The thing was, Nitro was just so much worse that the bad Raw stuff looked great by comparison.

The middle of the card wasn't great. The headliners made it worth watching, though.

 

[klunderbunker]

The middle of the card wasn't great. The headliners made it worth watching, though.

From a soap opera stance yes. from a wrestling stance, not so much.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

From a soap opera stance yes. from a wrestling stance, not so much.

Soap opera sounds negative. I prefer storytelling. The stories were great.

 

[klunderbunker]

Soap opera sounds negative. I prefer storytelling. The stories were great.

They got a little too nuts for my taste. I wanted to see them end which was the important part, but I vastly prefer 2000 to 1999.

 

[D-Man]

Actually I can dispute that. It turned the show into a circus rather than a wrestling program. It's probably the worst thing that's ever happened to wrestling.

Bingo. This statement and then some.

From a soap opera stance yes. from a wrestling stance, not so much.

Soap opera sounds negative. I prefer storytelling. The stories were great.

They got a little too nuts for my taste. I wanted to see them end which was the important part, but I vastly prefer 2000 to 1999.

Agree with KB again.

You know, it would temporarily spike ratings and stir curiosity if the WWE had an 85 year old man run naked through the middle of the ring on live television. But once everyone has seen it and the backlash of such a racy event begins, it becomes more of a regrettable moment than a step in the right direction for the product.

That basically sums up the entire Attitude Era. The only difference is that said naked man was running through the ring every episode from 1999 until 2006.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

They got a little too nuts for my taste. I wanted to see them end which was the important part, but I vastly prefer 2000 to 1999.

Strictly talking 1999? I agree.

You know, it would temporarily spike ratings and stir curiosity if the WWE had an 85 year old man run naked through the middle of the ring on live television. But once everyone has seen it and the backlash of such a racy event begins, it becomes more of a regrettable moment than a step in the right direction for the product.

That basically sums up the entire Attitude Era. The only difference is that said naked man was running through the ring every episode from 1999 until 2006.

No, it doesn't. I agree with KB on 1999, but 1997, 1998, 2000, and 2001 (minus the Invasion) were fantastic. Austin, The Rock, Mick Foley, HHH, Kurt Angle, Jericho, The Undertaker, Kane, Vince, HBK (for a bit), heel Hitman (for a bit)... you can't be serious... ?

 

[D-Man]

No, it doesn't. I agree with KB on 1999, but 1997, 1998, 2000, and 2001 (minus the Invasion) were fantastic. Austin, The Rock, Mick Foley, HHH, Kurt Angle, Jericho, The Undertaker, Kane, Vince, HBK (for a bit), heel Hitman (for a bit)... you can't be serious... ?

You're not getting me.

I never said the Attitude Era didn't entertain me. I never said it didn't gain ratings and viewers. And I never said it wasn't popular. Matter of fact, I agree with everyone when I say that part of me misses it all and it was my favorite era of professional wrestling besides the 2nd Golden Age.

My argument is mainly that, in the long run, it hurt business. They played checkers instead of chess. All the WWE cared about was doing ANYTHING to beat WCW's ratings, regardless of the long-term damage it would do.

 

[Shocky]

1997 and 2000 were damn fantastic. 2001 up until Summerslam was also pretty damn solid. 1999 was a fucking train wreck and a half. 1998 I'm still up in the air on.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

You're not getting me.

You said a man running naked through the crowd basically sums up the AE. I pointed to numerous talented stars and great matches/angles. If that's not what you meant, fine. I responded to your words.

I never said the Attitude Era didn't entertain me. I never said it didn't gain ratings and viewers. And I never said it wasn't popular. Matter of fact, I agree with everyone when I say that part of me misses it all and it was my favorite era of professional wrestling besides the 2nd Golden Age.

You have stellar taste.

My argument is mainly that, in the long run, it hurt business. They played checkers instead of chess. All the WWE cared about was doing ANYTHING to beat WCW's ratings, regardless of the long-term damage it would do.

I get that... to an extent. They went above and beyond too often, and could no longer up the shock factor. I get it, and I agree.

On the other hand, why does the era which doesn't attract much attention get zero blame? I see most PG-era defenders constantly deflect blame back to the AE. It bothers me that an era which drew insane television numbers and produced stars like Rock and Stone Cold gets the shaft, but Cena and company constantly get a pass for less-than-stellar numbers. I like wrestling today, a lot more than I did two years ago, but blaming the AE for every problem WWE has is foolish. Maybe you're not going that far, but some are. It's ridiculous, and doesn't make sense.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

1998 I'm still up in the air on.

Austin rose to absolute superstardom in 1998. Can't turn my back on it. Taker vs. Shawn, Austin vs. DX, Austin vs. Vince, Austin vs. Taker... loved all of it.