When was the WWE roster at its best?

[Wacokid27]

Saw both, personally enjoyed 92 better.

This the subjective part. I saw both and enjoyed the 99-2001 or so roster more.

But that's just me.

wk

 

[Wacokid27]

I wasn't around to watch the product in 92 (Only 4)

Whippersnapper.

1:

wk

 

[Action Jackson]

How is Hogan/Vince refusing to let Flair go over 'for good reasons'? Those are terrible reasons, especially since Hogan needed to lay low, PUT FLAIR OVER AND LET HIM CARRY THE COMPANY.

You were an infant back then. I'm sure your super expert opinions today are very important to you, but they're bullshit and you don't know what you're talking about. Flair vs Hogan was not the megadraw it should have been in theory. They tested the waters before Mania, and it didn't fly. If it was, they would have main evented Wrestlemania 8. That's the end of it.

 

[Lockard 23]

How is Hogan/Vince refusing to let Flair go over 'for good reasons'? Those are terrible reasons, especially since Hogan needed to lay low, PUT FLAIR OVER AND LET HIM CARRY THE COMPANY.

Having a heel walk out of Mania as champion was still very much taboo back then. They almost did it with Dibiase four years earlier and were afraid to pull the trigger then, too. Besides, Hogan/Flair was built to seem like a WWF/NWA match (what with Flair calling himself "the real world's champion" while carrying around the real-life NWA World Heavyweight Title), and no way would Vince ever allow Flair to go over Hogan in the main event of WWF's premier event in that case.

The funny thing is that Hogan/Flair being cancelled may have single-handedly saved Undertaker's streak. The original plans if Hogan/Flair had happened would have been a babyface Sid against a heel Undertaker in the midcard, and considering the huge plans they supposedly had for Sid before he left, I can easily believe they would have put him over Taker. Which would you rather have - Hogan/Flair or Undertaker's streak?

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

Having a heel walk out of Mania as champion was still very much taboo back then. They almost did it with Dibiase four years earlier and were afraid to pull the trigger then, too. Besides, Hogan/Flair was built to seem like a WWF/NWA match (what with Flair calling himself "the real world's champion" while carrying around the real-life NWA World Heavyweight Title), and no way would Vince ever allow Flair to go over Hogan in the main event of WWF's premier event in that case.

The funny thing is that Hogan/Flair being cancelled may have single-handedly saved Undertaker's streak. The original plans if Hogan/Flair had happened would have been a babyface Sid against a heel Undertaker in the midcard, and considering the huge plans they supposedly had for Sid before he left, I can easily believe they would have put him over Taker. Which would you rather have - Hogan/Flair or Undertaker's streak?

Hogan Flair easily, lol.

 

[Danielson]

Whippersnapper.

1:

wk

Yeah, I wish I could make a legitimate argument on which roster I think is better, but i'm not going to pretend like I watched 92 in full, and if the matches were great. You can arguably say on paper that they are pretty even as far as quality, so it's up to how well the matches were.

 

[Wacokid27]

Yeah, I wish I could make a legitimate argument on which roster I think is better, but i'm not going to pretend like I watched 92 in full, and if the matches were great. You can arguably say on paper that they are pretty even as far as quality, so it's up to how well the matches were.

Yeah. The problem with comparing historic rosters is this. Nobody on this site (I'm thinking) can legitimately talk about the rosters of pro wrestling organizations in the 1930's - 1950's (what many people call the Golden Age of Professional Wresling), but who's to say that the roster then wasn't leaps and bounds ahead of the rosters of 1992 or 2001 or 2013? If we examined the greats that performed in those days (guys like Lou Thesz and Gorgeous George), might we not think they were better than Punk and Bryan or Cena and Orton or Austin and Rocky? The problem is further complicated when some jackass (Hi, Mom!) posts about the modern roster because, while there are guys in there who are probable HoF talent (Cena, Orton, Undertaker (obviously)) and others who are in the upper-echelon to become HoF talent (Punk, Lesnar), we can't be sure if guys like Bryan will continue to perform at the level of a Hall of Famer. And, as we've seen with the Wrestlemania 18 match between Rock and Hogan of the matches between Cena and the Rock or Punk and the Rock, even putting talent from different eras in the ring together is problematic, due to the nature of the business (should we let old-school talent go over the current top guys in the business?).

Having said that, it's still fun to talk about this type of topic and see what people come up with as opinions and ideas about it. I just get bothered when people are jerks about it.

wk

 

[Danielson]

Yeah. The problem with comparing historic rosters is this. Nobody on this site (I'm thinking) can legitimately talk about the rosters of pro wrestling organizations in the 1930's - 1950's (what many people call the Golden Age of Professional Wresling), but who's to say that the roster then wasn't leaps and bounds ahead of the rosters of 1992 or 2001 or 2013? If we examined the greats that performed in those days (guys like Lou Thesz and Gorgeous George), might we not think they were better than Punk and Bryan or Cena and Orton or Austin and Rocky? The problem is further complicated when some jackass (Hi, Mom!) posts about the modern roster because, while there are guys in there who are probable HoF talent (Cena, Orton, Undertaker (obviously)) and others who are in the upper-echelon to become HoF talent (Punk, Lesnar), we can't be sure if guys like Bryan will continue to perform at the level of a Hall of Famer. And, as we've seen with the Wrestlemania 18 match between Rock and Hogan of the matches between Cena and the Rock or Punk and the Rock, even putting talent from different eras in the ring together is problematic, due to the nature of the business (should we let old-school talent go over the current top guys in the business?).

Having said that, it's still fun to talk about this type of topic and see what people come up with as opinions and ideas about it. I just get bothered when people are jerks about it.

wk

Great post, I respect what you're saying. I just don't know how I could honestly say 2001 was better than 92 and be certain or vice versa. I was just trying to convey that it's hard to tell for sure, and it's all subjective. I'm glad you provided all of the details though. As always, Waco delivers the best quality posts.

 

[Dejuan]

the headbangers
too cool
RTC
d-lo
the holly
APA...theres soo many