>People tell me modern wrestling is better than the attitude era
>mfw the ratings don't back up these claims
Are kids just mad that they'll never have their own attitude era and have to make due with whatever WWE calls their current product?
>>1337101
Probably, I personally liked the early Ruthless Aggression era but I ain't saying it's as good as the Attitude era, shit's gold m8
>>1337101
Ratings arent the only factor to consider, though they arent a factor you can ignore either.
The attitude era was the perfect storm. Several factors combined with Vince finally having the balls to deviate from his comfort zone led to a cultural phenomenon that, despite the wrestling purist having hissyfits, was very entertaining, innovative, and fresh.
However, no matter how much the nostalgia fags might want to scream, you cant deny that there were several things about the attitude era that dont stand the test of time and, whats worse, just werent good wrestling.
I was a kid during the AA, and I loved it alot. But Ive grown past the "my childhood was best childhood" mentality that grips people in their late teens and early twenties. Current wrestling can be frustrating at times as the powers that be seem hellbent to stick to the same formulaic stories that worked in the eighties but are just offensive to todays crowds (i doubt this will change. Superman just isnt entertaining anymore.), but I still enjoy it for what it is. Theres usually good to find
>>1337185
One thing I wanna add
I remember during the cenawins era thinkning to myself "This is a bad idea. Putting the entire company on the shoulders of one man makes growing new talent impossible and will lead to stagnation and even worse, making that man someone who is only really over with children ensures that the next generation of wrestlers might not be as dedicated as the previous. Who wants to risk their health and livleyhood for childrens entertainment"
It seems that parts of that thought came true. Though theres fantastic talent, dissent is sowed. People are frustrated, and crowds are mad. I think its gonna get worse.
However, another thing I'll say is that i notice several people who seem to have this idea that Vince will never stop, that hell always push who he wants to push. To which I say bull; diesel, luger and more were in Romans position and, despite getting alot of support, EVENTUALLY got dropped as VInce finally realized he had no options. it just takes fucking forever -_-
>>1337101
The top rated show on television is "Empire". Do you think that it is also the best show on TV?
1997 was "Attitude" but it's one of the lowest-rated years in the company's history, what's your point?
>>1337248
This. The idea that ratings = good quality is really silly. It just means it appealed to the widest range of people.
>>1337101
>People tell
>People
that's the problem.
people giving attention to the actual pg shit
>>1337191
>-_-
Jesus Christ
>>1337185
>just werent good wrestling.
Wrestling is a fake sport, there's no such thing as 'good wrestling'. If it made you feel something and got you invested, it fulfilled it's role.
>>1337185
>good wrestling.
Angle and Benoit had better matches and were far better than anyone in the current roster.
>>1337649
>Wrestling is a fake sport, there's no such thing as 'good wrestling'.
Unfortunately I do not posses a fedora image that's fedora enough for this shit.
>>1337153
Coincidence 2011 slowed that descent?
>>1337749
The Rock came back
Ruthless Aggression was the best era
>>1337752
Well, yeah. CM Punk didn't even get hot until after Mania. Where's a list of all the ratings?
>>1337755
http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2011-ratings/
The Rock returned 2/14
le pipe bomb was 6/27
Look at the jump from 2/14 to 2/21
>>1337754
wrong
Attitude was exciting, because it was so desperate and chaotic. Everyone had to go "Fuck it" and let everyone try anything because they believed they were fighting for their survival. For the most part, I don't think that was ever true - but I think Vince kept his talent worried about a WCW take-over so they would be loyal, and create a sort of siege mentality.
In many ways, the 1980s Golden Era stands up to re-watching today, because it was more about the matches. If you want to get totally into Attitude era, you have to start around KotR '96 and keep watching until the invasion angle, and watch it all in order. Golden Age was just about spectacle and telling a big story within individual matches.
>>1337757
The Rock was already an established mega star so obviously his return was gonna cause an immediate spike
Punk was a literal who to non-wrestling fans so 1 promo was not gonna usher in a new boom period in 1 week, the pipebomb was his Austin 3:16, he needed time, Stone Cold didn't become a mega star overnight after that promo
also the post-pipebomb Raw was lower because it was a taped show, those are usually lower, and after that HHH/Nash/Del Rio got involved and people tuned out
>>1337772
The point is The Rock was the reason that the 2011 ratings stagnated and not Punk. Yeah Punk brought some people back in but it was nothing compared to Rocks return. Maybe you can credit the ratings staying consistent near the end to Punk, but alot of those viewers came back due to Rock
In terms of in-ring match quality, yeah. It's better.
In terms of storytelling in-ring and creating some actual emotion or element of surprise, it sucks dick. Everything is so predictable these days when it comes to PPVs that with just watching RAW before one you can predict almost all of the results easily.
Also, wrestlers need gimmicks. Just another Technical Wrestler #15757 won't get big, ever.
