WWE: As Good As Ever

[BigBombB]

Often when I see debates about the current state of the WWE, I get the impression that part of what people don't like about the modern product is that there aren't enough "great talents" carrying the flag...and to this I ask "Were there ever?" In the future we'll be looking back at this time period and saying "man, if only we had quality stars like those guys now, wrestling would be so much better!"

John Cena will be remembered as the beloved hard worker that was never stopped by any reaction. CM Punk will be remembered as the rebel that took the world by storm and got while the getting was good. Daniel Bryan will be remembered as one of the greatest in-ring performers of all time. Randy Orton will be praised for his consistency, his genuinely nasty demeanor that adds credence to his gimmick, and his tactical in-ring style. Numerous guys who never made it past the midcard will be praised as being as good, if not better, than any of the "modern" top stars. "Could this guy even hang with Swagger? I don't think so!"

For every Kurt Angle, there's a Taz. For every Hulk Hogan, there's a Ricky Steamboat. For every John Cena, there's a Dolph Ziggler. There is something for everyone, even if a lot of it doesn't appeal to you, that something that does will keep you tuning in. Not everyone can be seen as a big deal, not everyone will get the push, but in the end history will remember them as being better than they were regardless of where they were on the card (unless you're the Great Khali or Heidenreich, then the opposite rule applies!).

 

[Catacomb]

i disagree, what you have to remember is in the 80s vince was able to cherry pick main eventers from around the country, resulting in a roster of superstars, an all star team if you will. while i like certain wrestlers from today the sad fact is when the majority of them retire, guys like santino, 3mb, ryback, they will be forgotten and certainly not included in the hof. look at the roster in the late 80s, early 90s, the amount of hall of famers on the roster at the same time will never be seen again. i enjoyed the attitude era, but even it cant compare to the 80s when almost anyone on the roster couldve been a credible champion

 

[mlp420]

I don't think the talent was ever the problem. The creative philosophy & style of storytelling is. I don't think the PG rating is as bad as it's made out to be, but I have no doubt in my mind that groups like the Wyatts & Shield would be FAR more entertaining with an edgier product where they could do more than that tired old circle-the-ring-and-ambush routine.

The midcard talent pool is as good as ever, but it all comes off as filler because the midcard titles are irrelevant and the storylines are generic.

You're half right. WWE's talent is as good as ever. Their product....not so much.

 

[Blade]

There is some really good talent in WWE right now. Cena, Punk, Orton and Bryan wouldn't feel too out of place in any top 20 wrestlers list, assuming Bryan has the great future we all want him to have. Plus the Shield and Bray Wyatt are some of the most promising young stars we've seen since that OVW class of 2002.

But at the same time, being a monopoly has hurt WWE to the point where they assume they can do no wrong.

I don't dislike the product, I like it most of the time. We've had a lot of great moments since 2011 alone. Punk's rise to the main event. Bryan's rise to the main event. Mark Henry's fake retirement. A few fantastic Undertaker matches. And so on.

But WWE is also making a lot of mistakes, ones that they never used to make when it comes to their top talent. So yeah, "PG Era" WWE is nowhere near as bad as many make it out to be. But it's not as good as it should be with the talent at their disposal.

 

[Mongoose McQueen]

I am enjoying the WWE product though I know it could be better and there will always be room for improvement I still enjoy it. Atleast it's slipped out of the mediocre ways that it was going through last year.

 

[JJV]

Bray Wyatt, Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins, Dean Ambrose, Daniel Bryan, Cesaro, John Cena, Randy Orton, Batista, Dolph Ziggler, Sheamus, Christian, Cody Rhodes, Damien Sandow...
Aand it goes on!

There are so many awesome talents in the WWE. What it lacks is strong storylines. When was the last time we saw a feud like Bryan vs Triple H? Last year, the unification match just came out of nowhere. Thank God Cena and Orton had history with each other, had it been some random superstars put together, it would have been terrible! The Cena vs ADR matches had no story. Most of ADR's feuds had no story, quite frankly speaking. Intercontinental championship matches are thrown together at the last minute just like the tag team championship matches. US championship is barely defended. I remember when Jericho and Rey Mysterio feuded for months over the Intercontinental championship and Matt Hardy and MVP feuded for so many months over the US championship. Good stories and strong bookings is what is lacking in the WWE, albeit I am really enjoying what they have been doing for the past few months!

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Bray Wyatt, Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins, Dean Ambrose, Daniel Bryan, Cesaro, John Cena, Randy Orton, Batista, Dolph Ziggler, Sheamus, Christian, Cody Rhodes, Damien Sandow...
Aand it goes on!

There are so many awesome talents in the WWE. What it lacks is strong storylines. When was the last time we saw a feud like Bryan vs Triple H? Last year, the unification match just came out of nowhere. Thank God Cena and Orton had history with each other, had it been some random superstars put together, it would have been terrible! The Cena vs ADR matches had no story. Most of ADR's feuds had no story, quite frankly speaking. Intercontinental championship matches are thrown together at the last minute just like the tag team championship matches. US championship is barely defended. I remember when Jericho and Rey Mysterio feuded for months over the Intercontinental championship and Matt Hardy and MVP feuded for so many months over the US championship. Good stories and strong bookings is what is lacking in the WWE, albeit I am really enjoying what they have been doing for the past few months!

Totally. That's what I think lacks in EVERY WWE pay-per-view from the last few years. I've been wikipedia'ing pay-per-views backwards from Elimination Chamber '14, and in most pay-per-views, I see a random WHC feud which doesn't have any compelling story. PPV after PPV, it's the same old Sheamus or Alberto Del Rio in the WHC picture. But now that is gone of course. As for the US title, the US title matches seem the crappiest when it comes to "story". They have no story. Every month, I saw Antonio Cesaro beating a new opponent. Zack Ryder , R-truth, Justin Gabriel, The Miz. All jobbers from main-event or Irrelevant never-has-beens like The Miz. There was a time when the US title was a credible title on SD and had storytelling such as Booker T and John Cena, Chris Benoit and MVP, Matt Hardy and MVP , and so on. Same goes for the IC title. There was a time when there were a group of superstars feuded over it and it'd all culminate in Ladder matches, example, Chris Jericho, Rob Van Dam, and Christian. Not to mention the great Rey Mysterio and Chris Jericho feud from SD in 2009. Quite frankly, the WWE has been failing to tell any compelling stories with not 1, not 2, but 3 championships including the WHC.

 

[resignedknight]

I'm not sure the Midcard storytelling has ever been that great. Sure, you can point to a few examples like Shawn/Razor, Bret/Mr. Perfect, or Rock/Austin, but it's the exception not the rule. Further, when it has been good, such as the examples above, it was mostly only done when they were about to push a midcarder into the main event scene, and so it can really be seen as the start of their main event time and not really Midcard at all. It seems like in the history of pro wrestling, you mostly only get compelling stories when you're a main eventer or about to be. I agree with the OP, it's as good as it's ever been. Is it as good as we could possibly imagine? No, but it's never been.

 

[mlp420]

I'm not sure the Midcard storytelling has ever been that great. Sure, you can point to a few examples like Shawn/Razor, Bret/Mr. Perfect, or Rock/Austin, but it's the exception not the rule. Further, when it has been good, such as the examples above, it was mostly only done when they were about to push a midcarder into the main event scene, and so it can really be seen as the start of their main event time and not really Midcard at all. It seems like in the history of pro wrestling, you mostly only get compelling stories when you're a main eventer or about to be. I agree with the OP, it's as good as it's ever been. Is it as good as we could possibly imagine? No, but it's never been.

Not true at all. The midcard was highly entertaining during that 98-2000 period. Midcard was not always just filler matches, they used to cut promos, have actual storylines that people cared about, etc.

If you think otherwise, I challenge you:

If you and I took turns listing memorable midcard feuds & moments in WWE history and you used the last 3 years and I used 98-2000 who do you think comes out on top? Assuming you actually watched then, you know the answer to that.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

Well considering people idolise "Attitude Era" and consider it gold eventhough for every good stuff that happened there was bad stuff that also happened there, would have no problem to believe that people would maybe look at this era and idolise it too on some level.

 

[resignedknight]

Not true at all. The midcard was highly entertaining during that 98-2000 period. Midcard was not always just filler matches, they used to cut promos, have actual storylines that people cared about, etc.

If you think otherwise, I challenge you:

If you and I took turns listing memorable midcard feuds & moments in WWE history and you used the last 3 years and I used 98-2000 who do you think comes out on top? Assuming you actually watched then, you know the answer to that.

I'll grant that they did a better job in those 3 years, but it's maybe not as significant as you imply. Taking '98 as an example, the midcard was dominated early in the year by stables like NoD and DX, which isn't significantly different from the work the Shield and the Wyatts have done. Later in the year, with the exception of Rock/Triple H which fits with my pre-main event push theory, I remember the midcard being largely dominated by rotating feuds between Owen, Blackman, Shamrock, and Severn, along with feuds like Goldy and Jarrett, which I would argue weren't significantly better than some of the feuds Del Rio had with guys like Big Show and Ziggler. They got promos and story lines, too, and it's the same place on the card. Maybe they didn't get over as well, and who knows whether that's the fault of the talent or creative, but they got a chance to feud.

The real difference between the era you mention and now was that the massive and extensive stables, often led by a main eventer, made the lower midcard feel more relevant because they were attached to big stars or ongoing feuds between groups as a whole. I don't really want that back, but it did work in that segment of wrestling history, and the lower midcard is clearly much weaker now.

Overall though, I still think the OP's point stands. Also, to my larger point, those 3 years, even if better, were still the exception to the rule in the 30 years of modern pro wrestling.

 

[mlp420]

Well considering people idolise "Attitude Era" and consider it gold eventhough for every good stuff that happened there was bad stuff that also happened there, would have no problem to believe that people would maybe look at this era and idolise it too on some level.

Yeah right. 10 years from now fans will reflect on the lost art of of the 6 minute, non title, non storyline related filler match involving two guys that get no reaction from the crowd. And we'll wonder what ever happened to the good ole days of the IC/US title being defended on PPV preshows, if they're defended at all.

Spare me the "people only like it cuz it's old!!!" excuse. Lamest argument you can make. All you have to do is watch the shows from that time and see how over the midcarders were then compared to now. Or just look at the fact that WWE's ratings, PPV buys, and House show attendance are all HALF now what they were during that period. And that's with tough competition then compared to a virtual monopoly now. There's no debate.

 

[mlp420]

I'll grant that they did a better job in those 3 years, but it's maybe not as significant as you imply. Taking '98 as an example, the midcard was dominated early in the year by stables like NoD and DX, which isn't significantly different from the work the Shield and the Wyatts have done. Later in the year, with the exception of Rock/Triple H which fits with my pre-main event push theory, I remember the midcard being largely dominated by rotating feuds between Owen, Blackman, Shamrock, and Severn, along with feuds like Goldy and Jarrett, which I would argue weren't significantly better than some of the feuds Del Rio had with guys like Big Show and Ziggler. They got promos and story lines, too, and it's the same place on the card. Maybe they didn't get over as well, and who knows whether that's the fault of the talent or creative, but they got a chance to feud.

The real difference between the era you mention and now was that the massive and extensive stables, often led by a main eventer, made the lower midcard feel more relevant because they were attached to big stars or ongoing feuds between groups as a whole. I don't really want that back, but it did work in that segment of wrestling history, and the lower midcard is clearly much weaker now.

Overall though, I still think the OP's point stands. Also, to my larger point, those 3 years, even if better, were still the exception to the rule in the 30 years of modern pro wrestling.

You make a terrific point about stables, now that I think about it. Many of the memorable midcard feuds from then were tied to large faction wars of the time. Specifically the DX vs. NOD, Austin vs. Corporation, and the McMahon Helmsley era stuff. The midcard titles were involved too, which is why they meant more back then compared to now. But to be honest with you I prefer it that way compared to to sitting through pointless midcard matches just to get to what happens with Bryan/HHH at the end of the night.

I disagree big time about Wyatts/Sheild being similar to NOD/DX. The problem with the Wyatts/Shield feud is nobody's keeping score. With NOD vs. DX you had the Tag titles, the European title, and most of all the IC title being fought for. It was basically like a turf war, you knew what these guys were fighting for and who was winning at a particular time. With the Wyatts/Sheild it's been just a series of matches.

 

[The Butcher]

Only time will determine this era's place in history. I don't think WWE is at its best ever, but it's not far off.

In every era there's been a good pool of talent of all kinds (promo guys, grapplers, attractions) relative to the style and culture of the time. Since the fall of kayfabe all storylines have been viewed in hindsight as a mixed bag, even the untouchable Attitude Era. The highs were higher back then so we were more forgiving of the lows (choppy choppy!). Today is no different. There's plenty of talent from top to bottom, and WWE is an enduring juggernaut that continues to bring a good portion of the very best under their umbrella. The in-ring action is exceptional. Like I said, storylines are always a mixed bag. The Shield/Wyatt angle sure had my undivided attention, though, that's for damn sure. Business is good, WrestleMania will pack 'em in, and the Network is off to a good start. So like I said, while WWE may not necessarily be "as good as it ever was," it's gotta be pretty damn close.

Everyone has their own opinion, of course, but even though today isn't the peak of the industry, WWE itself is riding fairly high.

 

[resignedknight]

You make a terrific point about stables, now that I think about it. Many of the memorable midcard feuds from then were tied to large faction wars of the time. Specifically the DX vs. NOD, Austin vs. Corporation, and the McMahon Helmsley era stuff. The midcard titles were involved too, which is why they meant more back then compared to now. But to be honest with you I prefer it that way compared to to sitting through pointless midcard matches just to get to what happens with Bryan/HHH at the end of the night.

I disagree big time about Wyatts/Sheild being similar to NOD/DX. The problem with the Wyatts/Shield feud is nobody's keeping score. With NOD vs. DX you had the Tag titles, the European title, and most of all the IC title being fought for. It was basically like a turf war, you knew what these guys were fighting for and who was winning at a particular time. With the Wyatts/Sheild it's been just a series of matches.

I don't disagree with any of that, but that kind of stable rivalry is unlikely to ever happen again. They took it for all it was worth and ran it completely into the ground eventually (see: Corporate Ministry). Since then, it's pretty clear they want to stay away from big, prolonged stable rivalries. The question becomes: What can we do with today's product to get these guys more involved and make the matches relevant outside of the things that worked back then? I don't have an answer, but if someone comes up with one, then it can be as compelling a product from top to bottom as it has ever been. They're not that far away.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

Yeah right. 10 years from now fans will reflect on the lost art of of the 6 minute, non title, non storyline related filler match involving two guys that get no reaction from the crowd. And we'll wonder what ever happened to the good ole days of the IC/US title being defended on PPV preshows, if they're defended at all.

Spare me the "people only like it cuz it's old!!!" excuse. Lamest argument you can make. All you have to do is watch the shows from that time and see how over the midcarders were then compared to now. Or just look at the fact that WWE's ratings, PPV buys, and House show attendance are all HALF now what they were during that period. And that's with tough competition then compared to a virtual monopoly now. There's no debate.

Not saying anything about bad stuff but the good stuff. People will maybe look at this era and said "Hey it was era of Cena(as they say Attitude was StoneCold and Rocks era), CM Punk "The Rebell" who throw one of best pipebombs, one of best technical wrestlers Orton, "Yes movement", perhaps rise of some talents( like maybe someone from "Shield" or "Whyats"), era where WWE Network changed business etc.

As I said most of people remeber are Stonecold and Rock, almost no one remembers all the screwups from Attitude Era. Some of that stuff was horrid but we had many good moments. Same with these era. Dont get me wrong I like Attitude Era too, just dont idolise it as majority of IWC does.

And as for ratings and PPV buys, it cannot be compared like that especially in internet times. There was no streams, no downloadables merely hours after premiere etc. And business is bumming even right now. Vinnie Mac is billionare now. He wasnt billionaire in Attitude Era.

 

[BigBombB]

You make a terrific point about stables, now that I think about it. Many of the memorable midcard feuds from then were tied to large faction wars of the time. Specifically the DX vs. NOD, Austin vs. Corporation, and the McMahon Helmsley era stuff. The midcard titles were involved too, which is why they meant more back then compared to now. But to be honest with you I prefer it that way compared to to sitting through pointless midcard matches just to get to what happens with Bryan/HHH at the end of the night.

I disagree big time about Wyatts/Sheild being similar to NOD/DX. The problem with the Wyatts/Shield feud is nobody's keeping score. With NOD vs. DX you had the Tag titles, the European title, and most of all the IC title being fought for. It was basically like a turf war, you knew what these guys were fighting for and who was winning at a particular time. With the Wyatts/Sheild it's been just a series of matches.

You bring up some interesting points here. There is no doubt that the midcard titles being treated like afterthoughts are affecting how we view the overall quality of each show. Having someone biting and clawing to get at Dean Ambrose to prove they are better than everyone thinks would certainly be more interesting than him defending on occasion and otherwise holding the belt as a prop. But I would also argue that it will definitely mean a lot more for the person who DOES make a feud like that happen because it is so out of place these days.

Imagine Reigns stepping up to try his hand at the main event while Ambrose and Rollins battle it out for the U.S. Title, Ambrose having held the belt for so long with the help of the Shield and Rollins claiming he could take it from him at any time without ANY help. This would be a huge midcard feud that people would likely remember and there are quite a few storylines going strong at the moment that could lead to renewed interest in the midcard title scene.

I think WWE has the elements to have strong overall shows and I think they've been doing well recently at making that a reality. The Titus/D-Young split was an attempt at that, the Cesaro/Swagger dissension is getting Cesaro over big time and keeping Swagger relevant (every time I think Swagger is destined for unemployment he finds a way to kick it up another level), the Shield/Wyatts are both known more as groups but as they become better known as individuals then the midcard will be flooded with "over" guys looking to make their way up the card.

While I agree that the overall viewing experience could still use some help, I think that they are on the verge of having exactly that.