Was 2002-2003 A Good Era For Wrestling?

[Hard Hit Prince]

History you're completely mixing up "changing" with good. We get it, a lot of stars debuted during this era. Most of those stars, save Brock Lesnar, were largely shit, and contributed little to the grand scheme of 02-03.

Your biggest claim is that it shaped the form for later years. Fine, but the talent still wasn't there. And the talent on top, save for Brock and Kurt, largely under delivered.

It's nice to make a hindsight argument that the era introduced stars, but in the now moment, the product was largely unentertaining to the masses, it drove off many fans, and led to a lull in business that would only get saved around 2005

How can you say that Evolution was shit? How can you say that Brock Lesnar vs. Kurt Angle was shit? How can you say that HHH's pretty much highlights are bad against the likes of Jericho, Michaels, Goldberg? Heck WrestleMania XIX has to be considered in the top5 best Mania's ever.

One thing, I bet I really do that you never watched anything in those years and you are just going into wikipedia to find some info. I grade a quality of a year for the impact it had to the future and the implication of it, you can't grade a year just because of three weeks of Katie Vick and Kane. Those two years are good, with the talent they have it's simply preposterous to even call it bad.

 

[Coco]

I'm not a fan of Rob Van Dam, but it's your personal taste and I respect that so okay.

Van Dam was as over as any face in the company at one point. Considering that there was a top babyface void on Raw for a long time, he should have been used better. This is just about indisputable. Take your taste and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

The last paragraph was just something you read in the "dirtsheets"

Nope. The business actually did decline while Triple H was playing grab-ass with his bestest buddies. That's fact.

I don't care if Cena and CM Punk loved each other or was lovers at Money In The Bank 2011, they ended up having a great storyline and a great match so why are you using backstage things to evaluate the content of two years of wrestling?

Punk and Cena set the stage for a new star who would go on to sell oodles of t-shirts and DVDs. It helped the business. Triple H vs Kevin Nash helped the decline of the business.

Give me examples on what sucked in the content and reasons why I should just skip those two years If I ever re-watch it again. I guess that missing John Cena's debut isn't doing my any harm, or Jericho's first World Title Reign (yeah because that it's never used). I also want reasons for why I should not watch Austin's last match at WrestleMania against The Rock. Well I'm just tired, this is ridiculous, if anything 2002-2003 built the wrestling you saw nowadays.

Watch whatever you want. Like whatever you want. I don't give a fuck. You're a Ziggler fan. Your taste is already highly suspect. Just be aware that this period basically murdered the business because Triple H and friends were too busy playing grab-ass to help make a new top face. And that's all that really matters.

 

[Tastycles]

In the years before Batista and John Cena came along, the WWE were literally throwing shit at the wall and seeing what stuck. Benoit, JBL and Eddie Guerrero were all World Champions at this time and Bob Holly main evented a PPV. Bob Holly. Hardcore Holly. Sparky Plugg. Headlined. PPV.

I know this was in 2004, but it serves my overall point, which is that the WWE didn't know what they were really doing after the amalgamation with WCW was complete. The biggest stars in Austin and The Rock left, and WCW's biggest star in Sting never arrived, yet the WWE was trying to maintain the popularity of two rosters without them. The result? Putting all of their eggs in the Lesnar basket, which backfired spectacularly when he left and letting Triple H dominate Raw with his mates and Goldberg, who had lost almost all of his lustre almost 5 years before.

It was only when Lesnar left in the way he did and the WWE were forced to build stars rather than one star that the rot stopped. The decline in ratings pretty much halted in 2005, because of Batista and especially John Cena. In 2002-4 was a period of short termism and quick fixery that pretty much all failed. Had Cena and Batista (and probably popular guys from ECW and WCW like RVD) been built properly from the outset, they'd have been ready by WrestleMania XIX to form a new main event with Lesnar, Angle, Triple H etc. and have people like Orton and Edge ready in the wings. Instead what happened was Triple H's indulgence and the most "shove down our throats' the WWE has ever achieved in Brock Lesnar.

 

[Coco]

One thing, I bet I really do that you never watched anything in those years and you are just going into wikipedia to find some info. I grade a quality of a year for the impact it had to the future and the implication of it, you can't grade a year just because of three weeks of Katie Vick and Kane.

You're judging a television show based on how it's seen in hindsight.

Haiku Hogan is judging it based on what's actually on his television screen and the effect it's having on business right now.

If you want a real debate, I know which approach is going to win.

Those two years are good, with the talent they have it's simply preposterous to even call it bad.

TNA has a great roster and are ALWAYS called bad.

Get a better argument.

 

[Hard Hit Prince]

Van Dam was as over as any face in the company at one point. Considering that there was a top babyface void on Raw for a long time, he should have been used better. This is just about indisputable. Take your taste and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Kofi Kingston is over with the fans right now and I don't want to see his crappy ass on anywhere bigger than the midcard scene. Rob Van Dam was and still is a great wrestler but an awful entertainer. Your taste is the one that needs to be fixed, that flat out proves you're stupid.

Nope. The business actually did decline while Triple H was playing grab-ass with his bestest buddies. That's fact.

No shit! WWE lost their main guys in Austin and The Rock, the Internet expanded, new forms of entertainment everywhere and the forth star of the Attitude Era had to be put in a bigger level, and saying he was crap in that time is fucking stupid.

Punk and Cena set the stage for a new star who would go on to sell oodles of t-shirts and DVDs. It helped the business. Triple H vs Kevin Nash helped the decline of the business.

HHH and Nash helped to put HHH on a higher level, because Nash was bigger than HHH back in the 90's, call it a pass of the torch and it was a good story, it felt real only a idiot that loves everything Meltzer posts can say crap like you.

Watch whatever you want. Like whatever you want. I don't give a fuck. You're a Ziggler fan. Your taste is already highly suspect. Just be aware that this period basically murdered the business because Triple H and friends were too busy playing grab-ass to help make a new top face. And that's all that really matters.

You are not a Ziggler fan, if anything you are the dullest guy here. The fact that you give HHH the fault for that is ridiculous. If you believe that Vince and Shane bet on him because he was banging Steph than you are delusional. HHH had what he deserved, he was the star in the middle of that and denying that is utterly stupid so you should shut up.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

WWE targeted casual fans in 2002-2003 just like they did in Attitude Era. And smarks hate both. RAW was like WCW and Smackdown was the show with better wrestling.

/thread

 

[Danger Burger]

Ive got every pay per view of this era on VHS at home.

I'll say this much, I watched through it. I later abandoned WWE around 2006? Could be because of my age or relationship with wrestling at the time, but I enjoyed it.

Did it do the best? Nah. And some of the stories were shit. But some of the stories are always shit. Some of the performers are always shit.

A good era for wrestling is a question steeped in objective truths though. For the business? No. WCW was gone, alot of talent was lost and floating around. Ratings dropped. WWE made a profit from wrestling, but not enough to pay for a restaurant. Not a good year for wrestling.

Was it a good time to be a fan? Thats up to the fan. Who gives a flying fuck what PWF of Haiku think. Lets get to the heart of this matter... Who's dick is bigger?

 

[Thriller Ant]

WWE targeted casual fans in 2002-2003 just like they did in Attitude Era. And smarks hate both. RAW was like WCW and Smackdown was the show with better wrestling.

/thread

What smarks hate the Attitude Era?

 

[braveh]

I thought the WWE was bloated and on auto-pilot at that point. Too many old stars, stars like Rock and Austin who had had become primadonnas and didn't want to be there. I twas the the comedown after the attitude era boom.

WM 19 was really the turning point and by 2005 it was a whole new generation who had taken over

If WM17 was the pinnacle and WM 19 was the turning point and I didn't care much for the period in between.

edit: and those years were also the pinnacle of Chris Jericho's career. You know that a wrestling promotion is in trouble when they're grooming a little guy like that to be the face of the company. Just look at Punk the past 2 years.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

What smarks hate the Attitude Era?

Most smarks in this forum. Read some era related threads in the WWE section.

 

[Thriller Ant]

Most smarks in this forum. Read some era related threads in the WWE section.

This is about has not-smarky of a forum you will find. Most smarks would kill for the AE to return.

 

[Coco]

Kofi Kingston is over with the fans right now and I don't want to see his crappy ass on anywhere bigger than the midcard scene. Rob Van Dam was and still is a great wrestler but an awful entertainer. Your taste is the one that needs to be fixed, that flat out proves you're stupid.

a) Kofi isn't close to being one the most over face prospects in the company. At the very least, Ryback and Bryan put him to fucking shame. And above those two are the real top faces. And there is of course Big E, whose NXT run promises a potentially massive top face in the years to come. Kofi ain't shit right now. On the other hand, Van Dam in 2002-2003 was quite possibly the most over face on the roster. This isn't comparable.

b) What you want to see is inconsequential.

c) My taste won't be getting fixed, and I'll still be one of the smartest posters here. The end.

No shit! WWE lost their main guys in Austin and The Rock, the Internet expanded, new forms of entertainment everywhere and the forth star of the Attitude Era had to be put in a bigger level, and saying he was crap in that time is fucking stupid.

Business rose when Cena and Batista took over the top spots. Business was probably always going to decline after Rock and Austin, but it declining as far as it did is a combination of Triple H and his buddies, and the "OMG REAL RASSLERS!" brigade on SmackDown. And that massive decline is inexcusable.

HHH and Nash helped to put HHH on a higher level, because Nash was bigger than HHH back in the 90's, call it a pass of the torch and it was a good story, it felt real only a idiot that loves everything Meltzer posts can say crap like you.

I loved their feud and HIAC match personally. But it was a shitty idea. Nash had lost such momentum and had panned out so poorly as a top face on Raw that they had to put Foley into HIAC as the referee and make it about Foley vs Triple H. It was an abortion. They literally hit the panic button.

You are not a Ziggler fan, if anything you are the dullest guy here.

Is the implication here that being a Ziggler fan and blending in with the masses would make me less dull? I don't understand why this is a single sentence.

The fact that you give HHH the fault for that is ridiculous. If you believe that Vince and Shane bet on him because he was banging Steph than you are delusional. HHH had what he deserved, he was the star in the middle of that and denying that is utterly stupid so you should shut up.

Triple H was a big star. He was always talented. But do I think the powers that be would have bet the farm on him pretending to be Ric Flair for three years if he wasn't family? Absolutely not. Just look at how quickly Vince usually tries to get out of relying on abject failures. To pretend that Triple H didn't get preferential treatment is asinine. And for that treatment to cause the company a larger decline than it ought to have is irresponsible business.

It was bad. Nothing more needs to be said.

Enjoy what you want. You won't be less wrong.

 

[Coco]

WWE targeted casual fans in 2002-2003 just like they did in Attitude Era.

One did good business. The other didn't.

Are you being intentionally dim?

 

[George Steele's Barber]

During 2002 and 2003, it was almost like HHH was doing things (or the marks were told he was doing things) to make people want to see him fall off his pedestal.

Invasion angle sucked ass. 2002 in to 2003 was decently entertaining but petered out toward the end. 2004 made me forget about the product for a long time.

At least no one fell from the rafters and died during this time.

 

[braveh]

a)

Triple H was a big star. He was always talented. But do I think the powers that be would have bet the farm on him pretending to be Ric Flair for three years if he wasn't family? Absolutely not. Just look at how quickly Vince usually tries to get out of relying on abject failures. To pretend that Triple H didn't get preferential treatment is asinine. And for that treatment to cause the company a larger decline than it ought to have is irresponsible business.

It was bad. Nothing more needs to be said.

Enjoy what you want. You won't be less wrong.

Even if that's true it was the right thing to do. Because when Lesnar quit after Austin and Rock were gone, WWE were in deep shit. HHH was the only one left who could take that role and job to Batista and Cena.

 

[Coco]

Even if that's true it was the right thing to do. Because when Lesnar quit after Austin and Rock were gone, WWE were in deep shit. HHH was the only one left who could take that role and job to Batista and Cena.

Fine, Trips ought to have put people over.

Now, do you REALLY think the WWE moved fast enough in that regard? If not, who's to blame? How about the guy with massive influence over the product who was the dominant on-screen presence at the time? I know I'd like to blame him.

I'm not saying Triple H should have been an undercard nobody. But he shouldn't have been The Man.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Steve Austin as General Manager of Raw was the best part of 2003. Only reason I watched, if I'm remembering correctly.

 

[braveh]

Fine, Trips ought to have put people over.

Now, do you REALLY think the WWE moved fast enough in that regard? If not, who's to blame? How about the guy with massive influence over the product who was the dominant on-screen presence at the time? I know I'd like to blame him.

I'm not saying Triple H should have been an undercard nobody. But he shouldn't have been The Man.

No it's a business. You can't just take wild chances left and right. Triple H was a proven draw. They knew Austin and Rock would leave but they wanted to milk it. They thought Lesnar and HHH would be the two guys that would carry the company. When that didn't work out they were god damn lucky that HHH was still around until they figured out that Batista and Cena were two guys that would carry the company.

 

[Coco]

No it's a business. You can't just take wild chances left and right. Triple H was a proven draw. They knew Austin and Rock would leave but they wanted to milk it. They thought Lesnar and HHH would be the two guys that would carry the company. When that didn't work out they were god damn lucky that HHH was still around until they figured out that Batista and Cena were two guys that would carry the company.

When it became clear quite quickly that Lesnar and Triple H weren't working, they should have swung for the fences.

They opted for safety. Safety hurt them. And they still dragged their feet towards getting new stars ready.

 

[Con T.]

Well, this was closer than I imagined.

When you consider two categories were "no" and "fuck no", I guess that'll happen. Makes me regret not putting hell to the no

 

[braveh]

When it became clear quite quickly that Lesnar and Triple H weren't working, they should have swung for the fences.

They opted for safety. Safety hurt them. And they still dragged their feet towards getting new stars ready.

You should have been a booker. Brian Gewirtz, Prichard, Vince what the hell do they know? They pretty much created every major wrestling star the past 15 years right?

 

[Uncle Sam]

My television package expired in early 2002, therefore 2002-2004 WWE will always have a strange, exotic charm to me. Envious?

 

[braveh]

My television package expired in early 2002, therefore 2002-2004 WWE will always have a strange, exotic charm to me. Envious?

It was on auto-pilot IMO. It wasn't anything new. I don't know how it could be exotic.

 

[Coco]

You should have been a booker. Brian Gewirtz, Prichard, Vince what the hell do they know? They pretty much created every major wrestling star the past 15 years right?

Don't fucking patronize me. These guys have also given us some absolutely putrid turds and passed on a lot of guys who could have been huge. Let's not pretend they're geniuses who are beyond rebuke because they've gotten a few right and are in the trenches. On a long enough timeline, they were bound to get some right. That doesn't mean there's nobody on the outside looking in who has better ideas.

No wrestling booker deserves the borderline hero-worship you're dolling out here.

 

[Coco]

My television package expired in early 2002, therefore 2002-2004 WWE will always have a strange, exotic charm to me. Envious?

Yes.