The New Generation: Was It Really That Bad?

[The Brain]

It seems to be a common opinion that the mid 90s was a terrible time for the WWF. I have read many posts where people are very critical of this period known as the new generation. I started watching WWF in 1986 and have not stopped. The new generation may not have been the greatest years, but I don’t think they were nearly as bad as people make them out to be.

For the purpose of this thread we will consider the new generation to be from King of the Ring 1993 (the death of Hulkamania) until King of the Ring 1996 (the birth of Austin 3:16). Most people look at this time with disgust. They mention the gimmicks like Doink, Mantaur, and Duke The Dumpster Droese that we had to sit through. I admit there were some bad gimmicks going on back then, but bad gimmicks were around long before and have been around long after the new generation. The new generation should not be judged on those bad gimmicks. Years from now we won’t look back at 2010 and judge everything based on what Hornswoggle did.

I think a lot of good came from the new generation. It started with Yokozuna squashing Hulkamania. I would think members of the IWC would look at this as a breath of fresh air. For the first time in fifteen years there was a heel champion that held the title for more than two months. We saw Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, and Diesel become main event superstars. A lot of people talk bad about Diesel’s title reign. I’m not sure why. He’s not Hogan or Austin, but I thought he did ok during his year at the top. He was a fresh new charismatic star. This was pre nwo so his laziness hadn’t set in yet and while his matches weren’t the prettiest I don’t think they were as bad as they’re made out to be (except against Mabel). The mid card wasn’t bad either. For every Doink, Mantuar, and Dumpster we had a Razor, Owen, and Bulldog.

I thought the new generation gave us a lot of great matches. Sure Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels were involved in all of them, but they gave us more great matches during that three year period than we’ve seen in almost any three year period since. Bret Hart gave us great matches against Mr. Perfect, Owen Hart, Diesel, The Kid, and The British Bulldog. Some more than once. HBK gave us great matches against Razor, Jarrett, Owen, Bulldog, and Diesel. Some more than once. And of course there was the Iron Man Match where they wrestled each other. Of course the quality of matches is a matter of opinion and I happen to like the styles of Hart and Michaels. You might prefer Austin, Rock, HHH, Orton, or Cena. I just think the matches Hart and Michaels put on during these years more than made up for any cheesy gimmicks that may have existed during this time.

Was the new generation really that bad? Didn’t the good outweigh the bad? I don’t want to hear about attendance figures, ppv buys, or television ratings. I want to hear about your own personal opinion. You never made a dime off WWE so don’t let their profits influence your opinion. Step back and take a look as a carefree fan and tell me what was so bad about this era.

 

[Tattooed Jesus]

I didn't think that time was as bad as most people make it out to be either. Every "era" of wrestling has it's place, has it's up and downs. People try to paint the Attitude Era as the Era of Perfection but it still had it's bad parts. Being from the south I enjoyed NWA/WCW more during that time period but still I enjoyed a lot of what WWE was offering at that point as well because if that era hadn't had happened then there would not have been many of the superstars of the Attitude and nWo Eras that followed.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Personally, I definitely echo many of your views. I still thought there were great moments in the post-Hogan WWF, for me seeing Bret Hart avenge his loss in kayfabe from WrestleMania IX when he beat Yokozuna for the title at WrestleMania X was awesome. Shawn Michaels rise up the card was a very intriguing element of WWF programming too. I mean his matches with both Bret and Razor were classic and not to mention Diesel as well. Great times.

There were some bad things though in my view, I was not a fan of garbage men, plumbers, hockey players and what not lol! Those type of characters did very little for me. Also the portrayal of Vader was unbearable too. People can blame Hogan for Vader's downward spiral but as soon as he went to WWF, it was an opportunity for a whole new era in his career, personally I don't think people can blame his last months in WCW over his lack of success in WWF.

To boot, I was never a fan of the Godwinns either, just didn't really do much for me. But to continue with the positives of this era, we had Sunny who taking a cue from Miss Elizabeth made major headway for women in the WWF/E.

To me, there was still enough moments to keep me interested as this era bridged the gap between the Hulkamania and Attitude era. At that time I was a fan no matter what, but personally I don't think it was a bad era at all, it wasn't as spectacular as what came before or after, but there were still great stars and moments. My avatar should tell you just that.

In my estimation, when the next version of the Hulkamania or Attitude era comes out, people might look at today's era of WWE as being similar to this timeframe.

So in short my only knocks against this era were just the less than impressive personas but otherwise with the great talent they still had there were several things that were great about it.

 

[bringitback]

I don’t want to hear about attendance figures, ppv buys, or television ratings. I want to hear about your own personal opinion. You never made a dime off WWE so don’t let their profits influence your opinion. Step back and take a look as a carefree fan and tell me what was so bad about this era.

Don't let a professional wrestling companys profit influence opinion? The purpose of professional wrestling, the whole point of the business is to draw attendance, ppv buys and television ratings. So please, do not ask people to not base their opinions off of the only thing that matters.

As for that time period, there was more bad than good. The guys at the top did above and beyond what may have been expected of them, but bottom line is: they didn't draw. Sure, the WWF was the main company, but the storylines were, for the most part, ridiculous. The TV show (RAW) was filled with squash matches and ridiculous vignettes and the WWF was clearly struggling from the steroid case backlash.

Sure, we had Owen, Bulldog, Bret, Shawn, Diesel and Razor...but they (up until that point at least) were not able to draw, they just weren't. It was only when the "attitude" era came in that any of them actually drew money, and to be honest, that's confined to Shawn and Bret from that list.

 

[kc2788x]

It seems to be a common opinion that the mid 90s was a terrible time for the WWF. I have read many posts where people are very critical of this period known as the new generation. I started watching WWF in 1986 and have not stopped. The new generation may not have been the greatest years, but I don’t think they were nearly as bad as people make them out to be.

For the purpose of this thread we will consider the new generation to be from King of the Ring 1993 (the death of Hulkamania) until King of the Ring 1996 (the birth of Austin 3:16). Most people look at this time with disgust. They mention the gimmicks like Doink, Mantaur, and Duke The Dumpster Droese that we had to sit through. I admit there were some bad gimmicks going on back then, but bad gimmicks were around long before and have been around long after the new generation. The new generation should not be judged on those bad gimmicks. Years from now we won’t look back at 2010 and judge everything based on what Hornswoggle did.

I think a lot of good came from the new generation. It started with Yokozuna squashing Hulkamania. I would think members of the IWC would look at this as a breath of fresh air. For the first time in fifteen years there was a heel champion that held the title for more than two months. We saw Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, and Diesel become main event superstars. A lot of people talk bad about Diesel’s title reign. I’m not sure why. He’s not Hogan or Austin, but I thought he did ok during his year at the top. He was a fresh new charismatic star. This was pre nwo so his laziness hadn’t set in yet and while his matches weren’t the prettiest I don’t think they were as bad as they’re made out to be (except against Mabel). The mid card wasn’t bad either. For every Doink, Mantuar, and Dumpster we had a Razor, Owen, and Bulldog.

I thought the new generation gave us a lot of great matches. Sure Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels were involved in all of them, but they gave us more great matches during that three year period than we’ve seen in almost any three year period since. Bret Hart gave us great matches against Mr. Perfect, Owen Hart, Diesel, The Kid, and The British Bulldog. Some more than once. HBK gave us great matches against Razor, Jarrett, Owen, Bulldog, and Diesel. Some more than once. And of course there was the Iron Man Match where they wrestled each other. Of course the quality of matches is a matter of opinion and I happen to like the styles of Hart and Michaels. You might prefer Austin, Rock, HHH, Orton, or Cena. I just think the matches Hart and Michaels put on during these years more than made up for any cheesy gimmicks that may have existed during this time.

Was the new generation really that bad? Didn’t the good outweigh the bad? I don’t want to hear about attendance figures, ppv buys, or television ratings. I want to hear about your own personal opinion. You never made a dime off WWE so don’t let their profits influence your opinion. Step back and take a look as a carefree fan and tell me what was so bad about this era.

I wouldn't say Shawn and Bret were "new generations" they were there back in the old days, back when they were all tag team specialist, the British bulldogs were there also! There was Mr. Perfect! The Undertaker was there as well. They were just all waiting for their time, when Bret finally became Champion, Shawn was already IC champ and so was the British Bulldog (underrated in my view) I don't care about the attendance record or PPV sales, it shouldn't come to that! The guys back then work their butt off, (Mr. Perfect, Money Inc, Legion of doom, 1-2-3 kid, Bret Hart, the British Bulldog,Texas tornado (Kerry Von Erich) Ric Flair, Undertaker, I didn't put Hogan because I just never like the guy, I think he used politics then and he used politics now, I didn't use Shawn either even though he's not new generation, but he's also like Hogan in my views! But he is one hella of a performer though if only he didn't use politics so much, I might not hate the guy so much! These are the old generations,
The new one; Shame-us, (soon to be champ) Wade Barrett, Drew M. shouldn't even be in title contentions, yet, Shame-us is champ! see what I mean by politics (via HHH) this new generation is just plain bad cause the wwe is fresh out of ideas and they give away titles like it's free candy from the store! It's so bad now that wwe is PRACTICALLY stealing MOVES OFF TNA (Michelle "I need Undertaker" McCool stealing AJ styles, styles clash and Melina stealing the Canadian destroyer move is such a shame and sham, I have no idea why they let it happened) I don't prefer Austin, or the rock, I am a hitman fan, a Mr. perfect fan, the British Bulldog fan, Texas Tornado fan etc.. I love the wrestling part of wrestling, not the politics that goes on today!

 

[WRESTLING_GENIUS]

Well The New Generation is what i really grew up on and actually followed WWF.... I used to watch WCW to and to compare the two i watched RAW more than Nitro, I remember when Yokozuna won the Rumble, I remeber that Wrestlemaina was held at CEASARS palace, i remembr guys like The Narcissit LEX LUGER bodyslamming Yokozuna thus coming up with the Lex Express,I remeber matches like Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart, British bulldog vs. HBK, Diseal vs Razor Ramon for the Intercontential Championship, Jeff Jarrett vs Razor Ramon for the same belt, I remember guys like Henry Godwin, Hunter Hearst Helmsly, Goldust,Ahmad Johnson(who when i was a kid was dominating WWF in late 95 early 96) were all newcomers and put on o.k at the worst matches, I remeber Sunny, o how can i forget Sunny, Sable, Wildman Marc Mero, I remeber when The Undertaker had the phantom mask on cuz Mabel splashed on his face(no homo)... I remember the Two ladder matches between HBK and Razor Ramon, I remember when the top tag teams was The Godwins, Smoking Gunns, British Bulldog & Owen Hart, Body Donnas(R.I.P Rad Radford a.k.a Louis Spicolli) I remember Camp Cornette(Yokozuna,Vader,Owen Hart,British Bulldog), Million Dollar Corperation(Psyco Sid, RingMaster a.k.a Stone Cold Steve Austin, 123 Kid, Kama a.k.a Godfather) I remember dumb gimmicks as Issac Yankeem(Kane), Waylon Mercy, The Goon, Salvator Sincere, and of course Doink The Clown, but all of them minus the Goon had great matches, I remember this the wrestling was and probably will always be better than the wrestling now and for that reason i enjoyed the New Generation Era and since I was 9,10,and 11 years old the gimmicks i really enjoyed as well, never will forget Hakushi, and Mabel.Oscar.Mo(Whoop There It IS")Men On A Mission Lol.......

 

[The Brain]

Don't let a professional wrestling companys profit influence opinion? The purpose of professional wrestling, the whole point of the business is to draw attendance, ppv buys and television ratings. So please, do not ask people to not base their opinions off of the only thing that matters.

As for that time period, there was more bad than good. The guys at the top did above and beyond what may have been expected of them, but bottom line is: they didn't draw. Sure, the WWF was the main company, but the storylines were, for the most part, ridiculous. The TV show (RAW) was filled with squash matches and ridiculous vignettes and the WWF was clearly struggling from the steroid case backlash.

Sure, we had Owen, Bulldog, Bret, Shawn, Diesel and Razor...but they (up until that point at least) were not able to draw, they just weren't. It was only when the "attitude" era came in that any of them actually drew money, and to be honest, that's confined to Shawn and Bret from that list.

I see you have missed the point here. Why should the financial success of the company influence your opinion? Were you collecting paychecks from WWF back then? Did you profit when they did? Did your wallet suffer when their's did? Why can't you have your own opinion instead of just looking at attendance figures and ratings and going with the majority? If you truly thought things were bad in the mid 90s that's fine, but I don't see why the financial state of the company should influence your opinion as a fan. Business was down in 1994. Business was up in 1999. As a fan I thought 1994 was the better year. The majority of people who criticize the new generation say the company didn't draw during that time. Why should that matter to you?

 

[bringitback]

I see you have missed the point here. Why should the financial success of the company influence your opinion? Were you collecting paychecks from WWF back then? Did you profit when they did? Did your wallet suffer when their's did? Why can't you have your own opinion instead of just looking at attendance figures and ratings and going with the majority? If you truly thought things were bad in the mid 90s that's fine, but I don't see why the financial state of the company should influence your opinion as a fan. Business was down in 1994. Business was up in 1999. As a fan I thought 1994 was the better year. The majority of people who criticize the new generation say the company didn't draw during that time. Why should that matter to you?

Lol, what does it matter if I gained financially or not from the company? You are asking people to say whether or not the era of this "new generation" was that bad for professional wrestling....professional wrestling is judged on attendances, ppv buys and tv ratings....so yes, it was THAT bad. You're asking me to have an opinion that's not based on facts, purely because it's the main reason your side of the argument falls short...completely devalueing the entire debate.

You're the one missing the point! The point of professional wrestling: to make money.

That particular time period did not generate much money because....yup...it was that bad. The proof is in the revenue. If it had been good, it would have been more watchable, more enjoyable and...most importantly, because this is a BUSINESS we are talking about...more profitable.

 

[The Brain]

Lol, what does it matter if I gained financially or not from the company? You are asking people to say whether or not the era of this "new generation" was that bad for professional wrestling....professional wrestling is judged on attendances, ppv buys and tv ratings....so yes, it was THAT bad. You're asking me to have an opinion that's not based on facts, purely because it's the main reason your side of the argument falls short...completely devalueing the entire debate.

You're the one missing the point! The point of professional wrestling: to make money.

That particular time period did not generate much money because....yup...it was that bad. The proof is in the revenue. If it had been good, it would have been more watchable, more enjoyable and...most importantly, because this is a BUSINESS we are talking about...more profitable.

How can I be missing the point? I’m the one who started the thread so it’s my point to make. You’re right, I’m asking you to form an opinion that’s not based on facts; hence the word opinion. Revenue was better in 1999 than 1994 yet I liked 1994 more. How is such a thing explainable? Because it’s an opinion. I am not asking if the new generation drew fans. I know the answer already. I am asking your opinion on the product despite it not drawing well. If your opinion is the product sucked that’s fine. I just wish you would have more of an original opinion rather than just blindly following along. Once again I started this conversation so I know the point I am trying to make. You are still missing it.

 

[ted sheckler]

I see you have missed the point here. Why should the financial success of the company influence your opinion? Were you collecting paychecks from WWF back then? Did you profit when they did? Did your wallet suffer when their's did? Why can't you have your own opinion instead of just looking at attendance figures and ratings and going with the majority? If you truly thought things were bad in the mid 90s that's fine, but I don't see why the financial state of the company should influence your opinion as a fan. Business was down in 1994. Business was up in 1999. As a fan I thought 1994 was the better year. The majority of people who criticize the new generation say the company didn't draw during that time. Why should that matter to you?

I agree 100%. You don't judge art by numbers.. According to that logic Ace of Base and Kenny G are better than Nirvana, Tom Petty and Johnny Cash..... Ace Ventura 2: when nature calls is better than A Clockwork Orange... ect.

The New Generation time was very underrated... The only problem was that even with the brilliance of what HBK and Bret were putting out there there was a lot of filler. But just the impact that this era made to the entire direction of wrestling makes this era important... without it "attitude" would have never happened...

 

[bringitback]

How can I be missing the point? I’m the one who started the thread so it’s my point to make. You’re right, I’m asking you to form an opinion that’s not based on facts; hence the word opinion. Revenue was better in 1999 than 1994 yet I liked 1994 more. How is such a thing explainable? Because it’s an opinion. I am not asking if the new generation drew fans. I know the answer already. I am asking your opinion on the product despite it not drawing well. If your opinion is the product sucked that’s fine. I just wish you would have more of an original opinion rather than just blindly following along. Once again I started this conversation so I know the point I am trying to make. You are still missing it.

Lol, so you're saying it's your conversation so I can't let you know the reasons why, I believe, you to be wrong? Noted. So much for the word opinion.

The fact of the matter is that the only way to judge if anything to do with pro wrestling was good or bad for pro wrestling, is to look at the facts and figures behind it...because the point of the whole thing is to make money. It can't have been a good time for the WWF, because it wasn't generating good profits.

It doesn't make me less or more of a fan because my opinion has legitimate proof and reasoning behind it.

If the point of wrestling was to put on good matches but not sell tickets, then yes...93-96 was an AMAZING time for WWF. But the fact of the matter is that it's not, the point is to sell tickets and make money, which they weren't doing to the extent that they had been in the past, when the product was better, and as it would in the following years, when the product would be better.

And the reason we know it was better? Because it was making more money. The reason why that IS improtant? Because it is what professional wrestling companies are judged on.

Not good matches. Good revenue.

 

[WRESTLING_GENIUS]

Lol, so you're saying it's your conversation so I can't let you know the reasons why, I believe, you to be wrong? Noted. So much for the word opinion.

The fact of the matter is that the only way to judge if anything to do with pro wrestling was good or bad for pro wrestling, is to look at the facts and figures behind it...because the point of the whole thing is to make money. It can't have been a good time for the WWF, because it wasn't generating good profits.

It doesn't make me less or more of a fan because my opinion has legitimate proof and reasoning behind it.

If the point of wrestling was to put on good matches but not sell tickets, then yes...93-96 was an AMAZING time for WWF. But the fact of the matter is that it's not, the point is to sell tickets and make money, which they weren't doing to the extent that they had been in the past, when the product was better, and as it would in the following years, when the product would be better.

And the reason we know it was better? Because it was making more money. The reason why that IS improtant? Because it is what professional wrestling companies are judged on.

Not good matches. Good revenue.

Only thing i have to say is yall are both right but as a true wrestling fan i rather be stuck in the 93-96 era than the era were in now, Minus the horrible gimmicks, The Wrestling was at its best during this time and has never gotten back to that level, there are some superstars that we have seen that make the exception, but wrestling now IMO is horrible, so even tho WWF didnt make alot of money back then, i think the wrestling makes up for that as it was directed towards kids and as a kid during that era i think it did a mighty damn good job, so pleaes stop bashing my era of wrestling......

 

[The Brain]

Lol, so you're saying it's your conversation so I can't let you know the reasons why, I believe, you to be wrong? Noted. So much for the word opinion.

You can let me know the reasons you believe I am wrong. You can't accuse me of missing the point of my own topic.

The fact of the matter is that the only way to judge if anything to do with pro wrestling was good or bad for pro wrestling, is to look at the facts and figures behind it...because the point of the whole thing is to make money. It can't have been a good time for the WWF, because it wasn't generating good profits.

It doesn't make me less or more of a fan because my opinion has legitimate proof and reasoning behind it.

So in other words you are incapable of forming you own opinion. You will just share the opinion of the majority. If more people bought WrestleMania XI than WrestleMania X7 you would say XI was better right?

If the point of wrestling was to put on good matches but not sell tickets, then yes...93-96 was an AMAZING time for WWF. But the fact of the matter is that it's not, the point is to sell tickets and make money, which they weren't doing to the extent that they had been in the past, when the product was better, and as it would in the following years, when the product would be better.

So you say the matches were amazing but you thought this era sucked because it didn't make money. If it had made money you wouldn't have seen any of it so why does that matter to YOU? You should just follow WWE in the stock market rather than watch any of the wrestling.

And the reason we know it was better? Because it was making more money. The reason why that IS improtant? Because it is what professional wrestling companies are judged on.

Not good matches. Good revenue

No, this is how we know it was more successful. I still prefer to have my own opinion instead of just going with the majority. As I said before it's fine to agree with the majority. I just wish you had a better reason than because it's the popular opinion.

 

[bringitback]

You can let me know the reasons you believe I am wrong. You can't accuse me of missing the point of my own topic.

I didn't say you are missing the point of your own topic, I'm saying you're missing the point of professional wrestling.

So in other words you are incapable of forming you own opinion. You will just share the opinion of the majority. If more people bought WrestleMania XI than WrestleMania X7 you would say XI was better right?

Again, no, just because my opinion is shared by the majority doesn't make it less valid. There are very good reasons why this opinion is in the majority. Because it is the one that makes most sense. But hey, if you think that Diesel v's Mabel was more enjoyable than The Rock v's Triple H, then fine. All I am saying is that the one that sold most tickets, within the realm of professional wrestling, is the more successful, and because that is the point of wrestling, is therefore what should rightfully be considered as the better one.

So you say the matches were amazing but you thought this era sucked because it didn't make money. If it had made money you wouldn't have seen any of it so why does that matter to YOU? You should just follow WWE in the stock market rather than watch any of the wrestling.

Yes, some of the matches were of a higher standard than you would have seen in 1985 or in 1998...however, the point of professional wrestling is NOT to have good matches. THE POINT OF WRESTLING, The reason they are out there = SELLING TICKETS. The entire art form is based around entertainment, it's based around making the audience want to be their hero. To put on a show that will have them coming back to spend money on it again.

No, this is how we know it was more successful. I still prefer to have my own opinion instead of just going with the majority. As I said before it's fine to agree with the majority. I just wish you had a better reason than because it's the popular opinion.

In wrestling...successful and better go hand in hand. For reasons I have already said over and over again. Better/successful = More profit.

My reasons haven't been because it was the popular opinion...if I had come in here and said...WWF 93-96 sucked because my friends hated it....then yeah, then I would have been following the crowd.But that's not what I've said at all. You believe your opinion to be more valid because you disagree with the majority? That is just plain ridiculous. An opinion isn't made more valid because of the amount of people that agree or disagree with it, it's made valid by the thought that goes into it and the facts that are presented to back it up.

 

[The Brain]

I didn't say you are missing the point of your own topic, I'm saying you're missing the point of professional wrestling.

Again, no, just because my opinion is shared by the majority doesn't make it less valid. There are very good reasons why this opinion is in the majority. Because it is the one that makes most sense. But hey, if you think that Diesel v's Mabel was more enjoyable than The Rock v's Triple H, then fine. All I am saying is that the one that sold most tickets, within the realm of professional wrestling, is the more successful, and because that is the point of wrestling, is therefore what should rightfully be considered as the better one.

Yes, some of the matches were of a higher standard than you would have seen in 1985 or in 1998...however, the point of professional wrestling is NOT to have good matches. THE POINT OF WRESTLING, The reason they are out there = SELLING TICKETS. The entire art form is based around entertainment, it's based around making the audience want to be their hero. To put on a show that will have them coming back to spend money on it again.

In wrestling...successful and better go hand in hand. For reasons I have already said over and over again. Better/successful = More profit.

My reasons haven't been because it was the popular opinion...if I had come in here and said...WWF 93-96 sucked because my friends hated it....then yeah, then I would have been following the crowd.But that's not what I've said at all. You believe your opinion to be more valid because you disagree with the majority? That is just plain ridiculous. An opinion isn't made more valid because of the amount of people that agree or disagree with it, it's made valid by the thought that goes into it and the facts that are presented to back it up.

I’ll explain this one more time and then I’ll let it go. We are not talking about the same thing. I am not talking about which era was more successful. I am asking you to put the ticket sales, ppv buys, and tv ratings aside. Pretend we do not have any access to or knowledge of this information. Based simply on what you saw on television was the new generation era really that bad? I know you want to use financial numbers to back up your opinion. That’s always the case when discussing the WWF in the mid 90s. I want to go solely on what we saw on television. I’m not even asking you to compare it to the attitude or any other era. I really don’t know how we got to comparing them anyway. All I am asking is based on the product alone was the new generation as bad as it’s made out to be.

I understand the point of wrestling is to make money and sell tickets. That’s the goal for the wrestlers and the promoters. The point of wrestling for the fans is to be entertained. Were you entertained by the new generation? Not were you more entertained than attitude or Hulkamania. Were you entertained by the new generation?

I know I just said we don’t need to compare the eras, but based on your comments I want to give you another example. WrestleMania 23 made a lot more money than WrestleMania X. I personally found WrestleMania X more entertaining. You may disagree and that’s fine. If you found 23 more entertaining that’s your preference and there’s nothing wrong with that. I just find it strange for a fan to say he found 23 more entertaining simply because it made the company more money. Haven’t you ever really liked a movie that didn’t do well at the box office? I’m sure somewhere along the way you thought a movie was really good despite it not being a financial success.

Sorry if I’ve been insulting toward you. I just really don’t think we’re on the same page with this topic. It’s not even that we disagree about the answer. We’re trying to answer different questions.

 

[BestForTheBusinesso9]

This is something that I have agreed with for a long time now. In my opinion, the match quality and entertainment value was better during the mid 90's. Of course the business side plays a huge part in deciding the effectiveness of an era but I think one thing that definitely has to be understood is the difference between what is popular to the masses and what is popular to a certain niche. Basically, this sums up the IWC in general. The IWC hates John Cena, the masses love John Cena. I'm not a big proponent either way on Cena just showing the relevance. When Shawn Michaels was the biggest star in the WWF, was my favorite time in wrestling but it clearly does not go with what the mainstream believed. This may or may not have anything to do with the quality of wrestling. May be wrestlings competition was better or other promotions were better. The bottom line is ratings don't mean everything. If they had the highest profile WWE event on free TV of all time on the same day Spike showed a free Brock Lesnar UFC fight, the ratings would be down.

Nice post Brain, I'm with you here.

 

[Chardee Macdennis]

How can you say the new generation wasn't that bad Brain...Just look at the numbers!!

Ha Ha....just kidding bro, we're not all missing your thesis. Man, I gotta say that I LOVED this era in wrestling. I mean, you had Tatanka, Razor, Luger, The headshrinkers, Undertaker, the Mounties, IRS, and one of my personal favs, the Smoking Gunns. Not to mention the big hitters like HBK, Brett, Yoko and Big Daddy Cool. This was a great time for me. I have over 30 first cousins most of which are younger and we were such a tight group back then that about 15 of us would sit in my grandma's living room watching every single Saturday. My brother and I would explain to them what was going on and perform the razor's edge and the sharpshooter (no "don't try this at home" slogans back then) on them. Now that those days are long gone and it's a whole lot tougher to get the family together, we still order one or two ppv's a year as a family and just enjoy the show. That era made that possible for me, so I defend it vigorously. I think it was one of the better era's of wrestling and I'll be damned if anyone's gonna tell me different.

 

[WRESTLING_GENIUS]

How can you say the new generation wasn't that bad Brain...Just look at the numbers!!

Ha Ha....just kidding bro, we're not all missing your thesis. Man, I gotta say that I LOVED this era in wrestling. I mean, you had Tatanka, Razor, Luger, The headshrinkers, Undertaker, the Mounties, IRS, and one of my personal favs, the Smoking Gunns. Not to mention the big hitters like HBK, Brett, Yoko and Big Daddy Cool. This was a great time for me. I have over 30 first cousins most of which are younger and we were such a tight group back then that about 15 of us would sit in my grandma's living room watching every single Saturday. My brother and I would explain to them what was going on and perform the razor's edge and the sharpshooter (no "don't try this at home" slogans back then) on them. Now that those days are long gone and it's a whole lot tougher to get the family together, we still order one or two ppv's a year as a family and just enjoy the show. That era made that possible for me, so I defend it vigorously. I think it was one of the better era's of wrestling and I'll be damned if anyone's gonna tell me different.

Man you hit the head on the nail on this one, New Generation i used to do the same except with not only my family, but my Best Friends family when i was a kid, from 96 to Spring Stampede watched PPVS religiously with my second cousins or my best friends family and his 1st cousin, therefor i will love this New Generation til i DIE, it will no matter what be my favorite time period of wrestling and I will never forget the Gimmicks, matches, PPVs(IN YOUR HOUSE'S), and Stables in this era, and actually seeing it transition to the Attiude era which is probably the best era of wrestling as far as World Wide goes, is a blessing in desguise fro me as i seen some of the greatest performers in wrestling history at there best in not only WWF but ECW, and WCW..... 93-97 best era in WRESTLING wrestling history and I put wrestling twice on purpose to prove my point.......

 

[THTRobtaylor]

This era was not terrible.. but it was the era that as a fan caused the most interest and embarrasment...

Interest cos I was into the whole tape trading/reading PWI/Powerslam thing... I knew TL Hopper was Tony Anthony, his work in Smokey Mountain was good and I looked forward to him signing with WWE... then they made him a plumber and I thought...this IS embarrasing.. a wrestling plumber? come on just let him be the redneck...

That era saw a lot of great talent put into horrid gimmicks... Henry Godwinn was a great big man tag worker...very underrated in WCW... but as a farmer the gimmick tainted that... even when they brought in his WCW partner... they weren't the same team as Tex and Shanghai... Chris Candido and Sunny were great together but they put them in stupid costumes and made him do push-ups rather than use the "suicide blonde" gimmick that only a year later would have been mega over...

Part of the problem was the insistance on bulding the majority of WWF programming about a few guys rather than the roster... You had Bret v Owen, then v Lawler... Those feuds went for years and at one point any new talent that came in had to be one of Lawlers... Hakushi, Issacc Yankem... rather than putting Hakushi into a legit feud with Bret Hart or starting him with someone more suited to his style it was tagged onto Lawler... and it damaged him forever...Adam Bomb... could have done a hell of a lot in WWE had they not hung such a lamo gimmick on him... Hell they could have made he and Crush Demolition...

WWE also had a policy of signing anyone and letting it spin out of control... rather than picking targets wisely... Guys like Louie Spicoli, The Goon, Mantaur, Salvatore Sincere and Freddy Joe Floyd were seemingly signed purely cos they had been in WCW recently, not cos they brought anything to the table... and WWE just hung lame cartoons on them rather than thinking anything up that was any good... They dropped the ball on Benoit in 1995, could easily have picked up Chris Jericho and Eddy Guererro much earlier than they did rather than Johnny Gunn as a Pink Dressed Italian or Tracey Smothers as a Florida muppet...

The biggest problem I guess was the In Your House era... going to Monthly PPV's meant that the roster had to grow... but rather than invest properly in building and expanding, they rushed... and ended up with something that wasn't really a "new generation" but more "slightly not as good as the last generation"... It was a massive gamble that meant resources went into more shows, not better talents and gimmicks... its probably why they ended up so near to going under...

The successes were that for those pushes that did work, they really did work... Shawn, Diesel, Razor, Davey Boy, Owen, Sid all had meaningful careers from that era... The failiures to capitalise on/waste of talent is the legacy though...

They failed with:-

The Steiners/Lex Luger/Brian Clarke & Crush/Ludwig Borga/Matt Borne
Hakushi/Shane Douglas/The Heavenly Bodies/The Rock 'N Roll Express/Chris Candido/Bam Bam Bigelow/Jim Neidhart/Al Snow/IRS/Tatanka/The Headshrinkers...

 

[AndyUK]

It wasn't all bad, we had stuff like Bret/Owen and Razor/HBK but more of it was bad than good. I certainly have no problem calling it the worst era in the companies history. They had an eighties type product in the mid nineties with barely any star power, ridiculous, outlandish gimmicks based on jobs and feuds over the most idiotic things.

It didn't do well financially because it was just too cartoonish for its time period. Each era of wrestling should mirror society at that time and that product didn't. It took ECW's cult popularity for WCW and later on the WWF to realise what they were doing wrong.

 

[Super Strudel]

Sir JoseOle wrapped it up pretty well and put it in a convenient doggy bag for you.
There were positives to come out of the New Generation, and right now, we are finding ourselves in the next New Generation cycle.
For every Mantaur, Goon and Dink (Hornswoggle, Big Dick Johnson and Great Khali) you have a Razor, Owen Hart and Shawn Michaels (Swagger, Barrett and Sheamus) making a name for themselves.
There are main eventers you get sick of (Hogan, Cena) and main eventers you don't get sick of (Bret Hart, Jericho).
Just like the mid-90s, the 'E is simply setting itself up for another explosion, and making sure it is getting the fanbase, and the wrestlers coming through, to make it happen.
For every bad memory from the mid '90s, there is one shining moment.

 

[CyDeez]

I have been a fan since 1983. I think "The New Generation" definitely gets a bad rap.

To be fair though, Vince in a sense, was just going through the motions. They were still enjoying the money and success of The Hulkamania years.

But, he was going through legal issues and had a lot going on. So I will give them a pass on certain gimmicks and matches that were developed during that time period.

Overall, their MAIN talent within the company, were not only talented, but some of the best ever...

Shawn, Undertaker, Bret, Owen, Bulldog, Razor, Deisel, Mr. Perfect, Hunter, Goldust, Ahmed Johnson, A return of Warrior, Sid, and others.

The quality of the matches were pretty high, and they held their own with better than decent storylines.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

It wasn't all bad, we had stuff like Bret/Owen and Razor/HBK but more of it was bad than good. I certainly have no problem calling it the worst era in the companies history. They had an eighties type product in the mid nineties with barely any star power, ridiculous, outlandish gimmicks based on jobs and feuds over the most idiotic things.

It didn't do well financially because it was just too cartoonish for its time period. Each era of wrestling should mirror society at that time and that product didn't. It took ECW's cult popularity for WCW and later on the WWF to realise what they were doing wrong.

That era WAS pretty cartoonish in culture, Beavis and Butthead, Ren & Stimpy and The Simpsons were serious competitors to WWF and the Hulkamaniacs of the 80's veiwing share...

Gimmicks based on jobs in essence were ok, it was how they presented them and the choices in who they gave them to that made them terrible...

Take an Italian called Salvatore Sincere... conjures images of a capone style gangster, not a guy in a Pink Ice Cream man style get up... The Goon, a hockey player was not a terrible idea... they just hung it on someone who had just played a cowboy... had they had Foley and made him the Goon, based on the villain from that "Youngblood" movie... hell that would have worked better than Bill Irwin...

Tracey Smothers... a guy who had been a Young Pistol, a Redneck and then from Florida? Huh? Why not make him the other member of the Smokin' Gunns STABLE, who were already on the damn roster?

The first Afro-American World Champion... so you make him a muslim, ok... I can see that... but then they dressed him in a BLUE gladiator costume? No gladiator I ever saw wore neon blue... You could see what they wanted to do... and as soon as the suits were over we got the NOD... but why not just not bother with Faarooq until the gimmick was right?

Some did work well, Dan Spivey was sadly just a couple of years too old for Waylon Mercy to get it's due but it was the right gimmick for the right guy... Savio Vega, The Smokin Gunns all had reasonable runs... sure I hated the Gunns with a passion and always will but WWF did get them right...

 

[god-soldier]

The WWF New Generation was a roster of a handful of WWF an WCW wrestlers combined for a show. I think that the new generation started out on the right path with Bret Hart and Yokozuna as champions but the Diesel HBK era ruined it. The roster had alot of potiental stars who could have been champion over Diesel and HBK. Lex Luger hadnt been such a premadonna on becoming champion n just went with what was given too him I believe the WWF would of had the success that was need for them to move on with out Hogan but keep the All American Hero alive and as champion. The match between Bret Hart vs Lex Luger @ Wrestlemania X would have been bigger than Hogan vs Warrior cause you would have U.S. vs Canada the potiental that could of been a huge money making success. But it wasted, you had up coming new talent that was posed and ready for a championship like Tatanka, Razor Ramon, Crush, Ludvig Borga,Savio Vega,Ahmed Johnson etc. Then you had great veterns who paid their dues n were ready for gold like Mr.Perfect, Bam Bam Bigelow, IRS, Million Dollar Man, Jeff Jarrett, Vader, Owen Hart, Bulldog etc.
The New Generation could have been huge but the WWF was blinded by HBK n his ego wanting to hog all the spotlight. The last 2 yrs of the new generation were really bad too me because Diesel was not deserving of the moment and niether was HBK after all they headlined the worse Wrestlemania XI in history. Plus on these two guys watch as champion WCW emerged as the top frontliners which means their time on the top of the mountain was really wasted

 

[The Yeti]

These were my first few years into wrestling. I'm very nostalgic for them. At the time, I thought 1995 was a step down from '94, but still thought it was decent. 1996 was a rebound. Looking back, 1995 seems worse.