Why do people still long for the attitude era?

[RicSpade]

I think some people hit the nail on the head here, in the attitude era Tag Teams were thriving in both WWE and WCW, and if there wasn't a solid tag team they're factions who had random people from the group to keep it fresh, ala Job Squad, Corporation, Nation, Ministry, it wasn't until then it seemed like Tag Teams have died and just started making a comeback, but it still doesn't hold water in terms of attitude era tag team feuds.

Now the other problem is the aggression and matches, don't get me wrong I am glad they don't blade anymore and 99% of the cuts now are hard way, but to stop mid-match to try and stop the cut like they did at Extreme Rules with Cena and Lesnar it takes the momentum out of the match sometimes, its only now that they are waiting for an opportune moment to do it, rather than stopping mid match.

The final problem is 90% of the roster is not ready for the main event so were left with the same 7 possible main event matches. I know what many will say, most of the attitude era was dominated by Mankind, Rock, Triple H, Austin, Taker, HBK and your right. But whenever these guys were on top they atleast had matches that made them look good that weren't on a PPV and didn't look like a legitimate squash match. We didn't have Austin have a main event match with Mideon in a 2 minute squash.

 

[JH92]

Sorry but I don't know how anyone can say WWE is on "Top Form" right now. Don't get me wrong I enjoy the product, and I wouldn't go back to the Attitude era, but come on, the wrestling quality is shameful.

Now the majority of matches are made up of tie ups, a few pretend kicks and punches and very little wrestling or grapple moves inbetween. The quality of attitude era lowercard matches was often better than the quality of nowadays main events.

If you want proof of this, sit and watch the current WWE product with a friend of yours who has never watched wrestling before and is skeptical of wrestling being a good entertainment form. After about 5 mins you will be sitting thinking ".... right okay I cannot justify watching this to anyone but myself."

WWE doesn't need to go back to being violent or edgy it just needs to go back to not being fully grown men stumbling around performing awful striking moves

 

[thebowtiekiller]

Sorry but I don't know how anyone can say WWE is on "Top Form" right now. Don't get me wrong I enjoy the product, and I wouldn't go back to the Attitude era, but come on, the wrestling quality is shameful.

Now the majority of matches are made up of tie ups, a few pretend kicks and punches and very little wrestling or grapple moves inbetween. The quality of attitude era lowercard matches was often better than the quality of nowadays main events.

If you want proof of this, sit and watch the current WWE product with a friend of yours who has never watched wrestling before and is skeptical of wrestling being a good entertainment form. After about 5 mins you will be sitting thinking ".... right okay I cannot justify watching this to anyone but myself."

WWE doesn't need to go back to being violent or edgy it just needs to go back to not being fully grown men stumbling around performing awful striking moves

i agree with you on the matches side of things.the wrestling itself isnt terrible far from it but its not exactly edge of your seat thrilling either.i rarely watch smackdown nowadays so cant comment on that but when i watch matches on raw most of the time it seems they are just going through the same motions week in and week out a few kicks and punchs mayby a suplex or two followed by a long drawn out chin lock/sleeper ect then comes the big comeback then finisher for the win.

ppv matches are usually better but on raw they will hardly ever try anything innovative or a bit risky also a lot of time anyone with a basic knowledge of wrestling can make a pretty accurate guess of whos going to win.

 

[newwaveknight]

Now the majority of matches are made up of tie ups, a few pretend kicks and punches and very little wrestling or grapple moves inbetween. The quality of attitude era lowercard matches was often better than the quality of nowadays main events.

Bro, do you even CM Punk? Do you even D-Bry for that matter?

Give me a good lower card match from the Attitude era and I will give you TWO better matches from the PG era lowercard.

And what about the main event guys of the Attitude era? Austin was down to the kicks only formula before he even hit his first WWE Championship. The Rock? The guy had rather limited mobility in the ring, and how bad does your in-ring work have to be when a standing elbow drop is your finisher?

I will say this about Mick Foley (and I'm paraphrasing the Nature Boy here), he was the best in the business at falling on stuff. Unfortunately, that's where his in-ring talent ends.

The ONLY main-event AE guys who could work good matches were Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels. Triple H was actually damn good before he bulked up though.

But seriously, find me those great under-card AE matches so I can find TWO PG under-card matches that are better.

 

[Mantis]

The PG-era has its pros and cons, but my issues with the current product have nothing to do with the content rating:

-Tag Teams still lacking
-Midcard Titles have no prestige
-Titles are put on guys in an attempt to force us to care about them (Axel)
-Severe shortage of full-time main-event caliber talent

Ramping up the sex/violence and slapping a TV-14 rating onto the show won't magically fix these problems. I loved the AE at the time, but I must admit that apart from top guys and certain classic moments, it's practically unbearable for me to watch now. A lot of it was Jerry Springer styled trash TV.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

Theme was disccused many times before but...

Why do people still long for the attitude era?

Because IWC thinks that product now sucks and long for Attitude Era but forgeting the fact that era wasnt that good. Had her good side but also very long bad side of it. Would not say that this so called "PG era" is better but people give too much credit to "Attitude Era" and too little to this era. Either of them had and have good and bad stuff about it. Somebody said about 90's. They were good but anybody remembers "Spice Girls"? Well, same with wrestling.

Irony is that people who bitch about era now are the same who would bitched in Attitude era if that era contunued to exist. You just cant please to all people no mather how you try. "PG Era" has comed because people were tired of Attitude Era as much as Attitude Era has comed because people were tired of same old rutine before that...

 

[JJ15776]

One simple word: nostalgia.

People, in general, are nostalgic. They like things that remind them of their youths. Most people who long for the Attitude Era were teenagers during the Attitude Era, and that was the favorite time of their lives. Ask them what their favorite genre of music is, and they'll say something from the mid to late 90's and early 00's. Ask them what their favorite video games were, and they'll list stuff from the mid 90's to early 00's. It's not a coincidence.

The truth is, if the same stuff that happened in the Attitude Era happened today, most of these people would complain how stupid/boring/whatever it is, how WWE Creative doesn't know what they're doing, etc. And conversely, people who are kids to teenagers today will be doing the same thing in 10-15 years. They'll rave about the PG era and complain about whatever era it is then. Just like people who grew up in the 80's longed for that era during the Attitude Era.

And so goes the circle of life.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

At the time, the Attitude Era was defined by two top of the card superstars in Austin and The Rock, with a host of great talent supporting them. You had the Undertaker in his prime. There was a tremendous villain character in Vince McMahon, who was still fresh in the role at the time. You had a vibrant tag team division with teams like the NAO, the Hardys, The Dudleys and Edge and Christian.

Was it perfect? Absolutely not. Was it entertaining? Yes. It was the right product for that time...they were competing with a company that was beating them and had to turn it around and put out a better product. They accomplished that. Would it still be the same today if they continued the Attitude Era? No, it would've gotten stale. They'd probably be looking at major media blowback had they tried to pull a Mankind-Undertaker Hell in a Cell match in today's environment, for example.

I think the problem today is that the WWE hasn't found its footing with its roster. In the Attitude Era, you had a lot of guys who could move in and out of the main event, and others who had established places in the roster. I will say that now, things are starting to turn for the WWE...or at least it feels that way. You've got two guys who can main event the card, and you've got folks like Daniel Bryan maybe knocking on the door of that as well.

 

[newwaveknight]

At the time, the Attitude Era was defined by two top of the card superstars in Austin and The Rock, with a host of great talent supporting them. You had the Undertaker in his prime. There was a tremendous villain character in Vince McMahon, who was still fresh in the role at the time. You had a vibrant tag team division with teams like the NAO, the Hardys, The Dudleys and Edge and Christian.

Was it perfect? Absolutely not. Was it entertaining? Yes. It was the right product for that time...they were competing with a company that was beating them and had to turn it around and put out a better product. They accomplished that. Would it still be the same today if they continued the Attitude Era? No, it would've gotten stale. They'd probably be looking at major media blowback had they tried to pull a Mankind-Undertaker Hell in a Cell match in today's environment, for example.

I think the problem today is that the WWE hasn't found its footing with its roster. In the Attitude Era, you had a lot of guys who could move in and out of the main event, and others who had established places in the roster. I will say that now, things are starting to turn for the WWE...or at least it feels that way. You've got two guys who can main event the card, and you've got folks like Daniel Bryan maybe knocking on the door of that as well.

You ALMOST had me believing in the Attitude era........until you said that they "had to put out a better product" and "a lot of guys who could move in and out of the main event".

The Attitude era, throughout its whole run, STILL wasn't better than WCW before WCW decided to copy the AE. If that were the case, then they would have started consistently beating WCW BEFORE '99, which was two years before the Monday Night Wars ended (which essentially ended the Attitude era IMO). The WWE's Attitude era didn't beat WCW; WCW beat WCW.

And this whole, "a lot of guys who could move in and out of the main event"? There was Stone Cold, The Rock, Undertaker, HBK, Triple H, and Mick Foley. A whopping SIX main-event guys. Granted, they had more powerful star quality than a lot of the main-event guys on the roster now (save John Cena), but compare that to Hulkamania or even '90s WCW (they had the guys who could main-event, they just never did it).

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

I grew up in the Attitude Era and loved it but I admit it was mostly because of the nostalgia. I mean I do like how characters and promos are not as controlled like they are now but all of our love and good will of a previous Era is because we grew up watching it.

Recently watching Youtube videos I have come to realize this.

Example watch a Video of WWF in late 80's or 90's there would be people in the comments saying that "wrestling isn't as good as it was back that era". You watch a WWE video that came out in the early to mid 90's (Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels) you will also comments with people saying that "the WWF isn't what it used to be compared to 1993, 1994, and 1995 (yeah know the era many historians thought was the worst period for the company). And of course we get those comment on videos showing The Attitude Era.

But here's the kicker!!! I recently saw a WWE video from 2002 and 2003. We are now getting comments with people saying the "WWE today isn't as good as those years". Yes folks the WWE years post attitude era from 2002 to 2005 have now become an era with fans that also long for those years.

 

[TempestH]

I liked how everyone on the roster could be over, credible, and relevant regardless of their spot on the pecking order. Nowadays, the only way WWE can put anyone over is to shove people into the main event scene. Back in the Attitude Era days, you didn't need a massive push towards the World Title in order to matter.

Back in the Attitude Era, you could watch people put on entertaining matches and get over in the midcard. Now it seems that every wrestler gets pushed to the moon, wins the World Title or feuds with John Cena, and then drops DOWN into the midcard, floundering aimlessly and simply coasting on whatever rub they got from being the main event.

 

[akathelaw]

When I was a teenager, I fucking hated Attitude Era. Give me Nitro with the nWo, Hall, Nash, Sting, Flair and Jericho. Those were great years for WCW and WWF, but I just didn't like Vince's lewd humor tainting a championship wrestling exhibition. It was disrespectful and for a time WCW had better talent and booking, so I stuck with WCW until the end. I can enjoy matches from the Attitude Era looking back now, but I chose not to watch Raw for years because it didn't appeal to my level of taste. That being said, I've been watching raw nonstop since '07.

 

[rge2010]

Don't get me wrong, the Attitude era was great TV, but the ratings were in a day when there was no UFC or set top boxes to record!!!

Personally I thought the 'ruthless agression era' was better. 2002-2004 was brilliant. I loved the brand extension and the draft was one of the most anticipated spots on WWE TV.

Brock Lesnar was born, Batista, Cena, Orton were born. Goldberg, Hogan, Nash, HBK all returned to the squared circle. Kurt Angle became a main event player, Benoit, RVD, Hardys were all more refined and better than they were in the attitude era.

WM 18, 19, 20, 21 were all solid Wrestlemanias, I also remember the Summerslams being awesome events around this time.

 

[scomvp316]

Here are the things of that era I like:
Great ME picture with at least 6 stars
Stories that so many adults could relate to
Characters that represented society so well

All of the above mentioned had a lot to do with direct industry competition
One of the reasons so many fans dislike Cena is we have seen this song and dance before with one guy getting the super majority of title reigns
Some say Punk isn't marketable but Punk's life and out of ring persona fits more to the average adult fan
Fans are just tired that one talent stays the same and everyone else keeps switching 12-18 months with Sheamus the exception so far
Just have the ME scene similar to what is was in the late 90's
You don't have to have the revolving door title reigns like the previous era just more balanced

 

[#tamale]

Youtube clips. Like in any sport when a team is ready to draft, sign, or trade for a player; they go to youtube, see the 5 minute highlight, and immediately form an opinion.

Same thing here. People only see the good but don't see the bad as well. And at times, the Attitude Era was really bad.

The Attitude era, throughout its whole run, STILL wasn't better than WCW before WCW decided to copy the AE. If that were the case, then they would have started consistently beating WCW BEFORE '99, which was two years before the Monday Night Wars ended (which essentially ended the Attitude era IMO). The WWE's Attitude era didn't beat WCW; WCW beat WCW.

Higher Ratings ≠ Better Product. If that were the case, The Big Bang Theory and 2 Broke Girls would actually be funny.

From mid 97 to early 99, WWE was superior in quality to WCW.

 

[newwaveknight]

Higher Ratings ≠ Better Product. If that were the case, The Big Bang Theory and 2 Broke Girls would actually be funny.

From mid 97 to early 99, WWE was superior in quality to WCW.

Okay, so in an era before DVR, Hulu, livestreaming, and YouTube, ratings didn't signify a better product, especially in a time when pro-wrestling was at it's most popular?

So, what you're saying is that if a show is good enough to be the highest-rated cable television show of '97 (not JUST the highest rated wrestling show) like WCW was, and it got there because it was good enough to where it had something for everybody and more people watched it than any other show, somehow that means it's not better and WWF was in '97?

Where is the foundation of your logic on that one?

Tell yourself whatever you want, but number don't lie.

And if you'd like, I can post those numbers for you.

 

[wrestlingfan]

it's pure nostalgia. People will always miss and favor what they grew up with in their childhood.

 

[MaryPlowman]

Still miss the era where players had a certain behavior and attitude which enhance or compliment their look. Its hard to find that in this generation.

 

[Kidpolean]

I dont long for the attitude era

The AE was awesome and a huge part of my childhood but I dont want to see it happen again. I was a child during the AE and that is what made it cool to me. I believed it and fell in love with all the over the top characters. Now that I am older, I view wrestling differently. As a child wrestling was a tv show, as an adult I view it as a sporting event. This era is more respectable than the AE. I can sit down and watch an episode of Raw with my son without having to worry about something inappropriate happening. I used to have to sneak and watch the WWF because my parent wouldnt allow me to watch it. I was allowed to watch WCW so whenever the coast was clear I would flip to Raw. Now that I am grown I see why I was not allowed to watch Raw. The AE was entertaining but I believe that wrestling should be PG. It should be an event that the whole family can watch.

 

[Dyscord]

A bit of nostalgia. But the biggest thing for me? Compelling storylines. The AE had it in spades. Even the jobbers had storylines. Nowadays, if you're not upper midcard or main event, you honestly don't matter much. Plus the stories are fairly predictable.

 

[LuckyLouie]

There was no internet and wrestling didn't break character.
It was a lot harder to find out what was going to happen, and wasn't as commercialized as it is now. But you cant blame the business, they had to adapt or fail.

 

[dtroppe]

The thing about the attitude era was that anything could happen. You had WWF and WCW- both promotions with huge and creative stars. That meant the stars could jump ship at a moments notice and truly surprise fans.

On top of that, you had great characters and some of the best all around entertainers of all time. 1997-2000 had lots of fun story lines and unique characters to build those story lines. It wasn't the offensiveness of the storylines that were good- actually a lot of that stuff was corny. It was guys like Austin, Foley, HBK, HHH, Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, etc... delivering great promos and actually blurring the lines of real and fake.

You cant do that today as you have one legitimate star in John Cena. TNA has Kurt Angle and if jumped to WWE - it may create some excitement- but thats as far as you can get. A lot of the new WWE guys all look the same and talk the same.The promos are scripted- what we lost was legitimate creative talent.

 

[H33LTurn]

Its like asking why people prefer action movies instead of romantic comedies (men, anyway). There was a lot more physicality in those days, and it went hand in hand with unpredictability. You could tell it was a competitive business and rivals were legitimately angry at each other. The storylines were better developed and the large assortment of main event stars and established veterans meant the title picture never got boring. The Rock, Stone Cold, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Undertaker Kane, Mankind, and Jericho were all major stars and all dominated the cards. Today the majority of the roster is green, lacking aggression, lacking personality, lacking the appropriate look, and rarely ever pushed the right way. Its obvious that WWE doesnt have confidence in its superstars, that its more concerned with maintaining its corporate squeaky-clean reputation at the expense of storyline and character development, and the majority of fans can predict the outcome of the shows. Our superstars look like they either got off an all you can eat buffet or a crack binge, and a small number of them have the it factor. Few of them can tell a story in the ring, and those who can are rarely ever pushed because of backstage politics. One person, Cena, dominates the WWE title division and opposite him is just a revolving door of young, talented individuals or seasoned veterans, who are pushed beyond their value, fail to obtain the WWE title, and then suffer the lower cards for the remainder of their careers. WWE today is tacky, marketed towards children, poorly written, and poorly represented by a weak roster. There you go.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

For me the product was just more focused. The tag team division had direction. The mid card had a purpose... Mid card feuds were common and guys just weren't exchanging wins back and forth and going nowhere. Mid card champions weren't being jobbed out constantly in non-title matches. The main event scene was the most entertaining WWE has ever been. Things ACTUALLY happened on RAW and SmackDown. They weren't just previews for the ppv's and wasted time with filler segments.

The attitude era wasn't just blood, sex, violence and profanity. The product was constantly interesting. They had ppv quality matches on TV every week. Even on Heat! You couldn't miss a single show for fear of missing out because so much happened on every show.

That's why I prefer it. I will still watch attitude era PPVs and RAWs on YouTube from time to time for nostalgia sake. And I do long for it. There is a huge difference from today's product and the main thing being a focused direction.

 

[Mark Henry's Beard]

Pretty simple to me. It's because it was a better show with better characters.

Everything was done for a reason. There were no pointless matches on tv. Everyone had a unique character, and everyone had storylines and feuds, from the top on down. Jobbers in the Attitude era had more defined and complex characters than upper midcarders do now.

And there was no glass ceiling. If you got over with the crowd, you were given a chance to run with the ball. People were given a chance to get over. It wasn't "lose on RAW, get your win back on SmackDown". And for all the talk about how the belts were just props, it's funny how they were infinitely more prestigious back then.

The Attitude era was just better. Period. You cared about the characters, so you cared what happened to them. That's television 101. It's not about the pure wrestling. It doesn't matter how good an actor someone is. If you don't give a shit about his character, what's the point in watching the show?