The way it was back then was much more exciting and unpredictable though, these days you will have an Orton/Cena match or something and know that the title will most likely change hands if not at that PPV then the one after. Attitude Era had much more people in the equations at times too, todays are usually the same over. Todays are boring.
All you said here was that it was more unpredictable back in the attitude era and today is boring. Please elaborate on how it was more unpredictable back then.
^exactly... back then those reigns meant something,
How did all of those short title reigns back then mean anymore than the short title reigns we see today?
the wrestlers had passion,
Wrestler's today don't have passion? Give me a break. Two guys that come to mind are John Cena and Triple H. Those two guys have as much passion as anyone from the attitude era if not more.
the matches themselves lasted so long and the crowd was so into it!
The title matches today last just as long as they did back then, unless it involves a guy like the Undertaker that currently can't wrestle probably more than 10 minutes. And at times the crowds aren't into everything that happens, but they are almost always hot for the title matches.
And plus back then there were no spoilers to ruin it anyways, or at least no one really knew about it, we were all nieve back then anyways when it came to wrestling
LOL So wrestling was better back then because you didn't have spoilers? That means that the WWE forces you to go onto the forums and news sites to find out results and plans for storylines then, right?
Yeah but back then they actually knew how to build a feud without a title being involved. Just look at Kane vs. Undertaker,
That was one hell of a feud. If it wasn't for the lacklustre matches it could go down as one of the greatest feuds ever.
the Terri Invitational Series,
This is just like the TLC stuff that did involve the belts. The feuds itself were nothing great. They just delivered a lot of really good matches.
Triple H vs. Kurt Angle just to name a few.
This feud did involve the belt as it started on the build up to Summerslam 2000 when the Rock defended the title against Triple H and Kurt Angle.
I’m not denying that they had some good feuds back then that didn't involve the belt. I just think it's completely unfair to say that today there aren't good feuds without the belt. Last year HBK/Jericho had a damn good feud that didn't involve the belt until the very end of their feud. Unless you are a blind Cena hater I'd say that the Cena/JBL feud from last year was a pretty solid feud without the belt. More recently you had DX/Legacy that turned into a good feud and did a nice job of making the young guys look good.
Bret Hart Vs Steve Austin is probably one of the best feuds that didn't involve World Championship or any other championships.
Agreed.
^^how old were you back then, 8? lulz
This might be the best point I seen in the thread. I constantly see people praising the Attitude era and bashing today's product. Then I look at the age in your profile and it's usually between the ages of 16-24. So back then you were anywhere between the age of 6-14. Number 1 I question if you actually watched wrestling back then or just seen videos. Number 2 and this is something I talked about in another thread recently is that when you are that age wrestling was far newer to you and you also have a much different perspective at the age of 10 than you do at 20. Of course things seem more unpredictable and it usually takes less to entertain you. So when you look back you think that the product was so much more amazing because you don’t get the same feeling today as you did back then.
As far as there being so many title changes in a short time, I have to say I personally hate it. It definitely takes away from the belt and makes it seem far less important. I'm hoping that we see a good 6-8 month title reign from someone soon.
