WWE 1998-2000!

[Brett]

Do you agree that 1998-2000 were the best years in WWE (then WWf). In 2001 things started too go a bit dull and its all been donwhill since then.

If you look at how it was back then the wrestlers, theme, soundtrack and areanas looked so much cooler back then. 1998-2000 is what the WWE SHOULD be. Nowadays when i watch it the whole theme of the show is more like an awards ceremony.


Hopefully in the next few years the wwe will be heading away from the current theme we currently have too suffer. And no i don't think the current WWE era we are in has anything too do with changing times either.


Does anyone else share my opinions?

 

[Deezy]

Best time was 02-04.

That Smackdown run was too good for wrestling and WWE bolstered the most stacked roster in history.

 

[Brett]

True 02-04 was the most hectic year but 2000 was awsome

 

[Deezy]

True 02-04 was the most hectic year but 2000 was awsome

2000 was alright, The Hardy's/E&C/Dudleys were the reason to watch, No Austin and no Foley wasn't making it better, sure Rock/Trips was great, but the whole dynamic was off, because of the monoplization of the mainevent by them.

Jericho/Angle/Benoit were also the reason to watch, but for the most part, they peaked in 02-04. And were far more better during that run.

 

[The New F'n Show]

For some odd reason I always enjoyed 2001. It was the end of one period and the start of the other.

 

[John McHenry]

You only see it that way due to age. I'm sure that guys that were our age in the 90's thought the 80's was the shit I'm sure people our age in twenty years will claim now was the shit.

It's all relative to time.

 

[EffectsofRaven]

The current era is great...

But 02 to 04 was the most superb year for WWE, their roster was stacked but many of the talent was also on top of their games and they didn't really have an Austin/Hogan/Cena during that point, they had Lesnar and Triple H holding the belts and being their go to guys but there was so many people on the roster they could rely on to main event a match when called upon.

1998 to 2000 was great for ratings grabbing and possibly the best time for great matches, to be honest... Foley had the best matches of that entire era.

 

[The Hoov]

I would like to include the year 1997 in that. 1997-2000 was the best years for WWE. It was the rise of the most popular guys in the company's history (Austin, Rock, Foley, Triple H, Taker), you still had HBK and Bret albeit not very long, including Montreal which shook up the business quite a bit and viewership was at an all-time high. It was great being a kid during the Attitude Era, it really was. I highly doubt the kids of this generation are as invested into the current product as we were during that time. Guys like Austin, Rock and Foley were just polarizing and The Undertaker was at his most evil during that time. Great time to be a wrestling fan.

 

[Keith]

Think you may have a point there. Personally the work rate and wrestling level of 97-98 were maybe the best it has ever been. Have said it many times through looking back the Attitude era had some horrible stuff and it was carried by the likes of Austin, Foley, Rock etc. Don't think WWE would get away with it again. 2000-01 was actaully a very strong period. I agree that the roster from 2002-04 had great depth, but by then the booking had lost its way and they didn't really know what to do with most of those guys.

87-90
96-2000

These are the two best periods product wise for me.

 

[The Cork]

The live crowd plays it's part in the illusion.

Back then the crowds were full of drunk, rowdy 20+ somethings, nowadays it's kids and their parents sitting on their hands. Jobber tag teams like Too Cool were more over than 99% of todays roster just on that basis alone.

 

[Rated R Superstar]

This was the time where tag teams were awesome.

 

[Chris]

From the end of December to the end of April, I watched every Raw from 1998-2000, so I have a fresh perspective on this. Yes, they were the best years in WWE, but I do think they are a bit overrated after watching them. There were some really stupid and distasteful angles such as the drunk Hawk or Mae Young pregnancy ones. The main event scene was the best it's ever been, but up until the end of 1999 the non-main event PPV matches were just thrown together at what seemed to be random and most of the time also sucked. Tag team division got fucking amazing in 2000, which I think was the best. Overall, very fun to watch, but definitely has more cons that people seem to forget. WrestleMania X-Seven was the peak, after that it went downhill, fairly fast with the Invasion storyline.

 

[Defiant]

The Attitude Era's content was more daring and the crowds were louder, it was almost geared towards a different demographic. Apart from the mid/lower carders and a handful of main eventers from back then, I actually prefer the quality of wrestling today because I think its faster, more exciting and more varied.

 

[Chris]

Other than PPV main events, which were pretty damn good, and the rare good mid card match, Attitude Era matches were pretty bad. Chair shot, chair shot, chair shot, broken announce table, Stunner, 1, 2, 3. The actual wrestling now and for the past 10 years or so is definitely better, but I'd say the product as a whole isn't. Attitude Era Raws are much more enjoyable than any other era, despite there being like 2 good matches from 1998-2001 on Raw, whilst we have at least one pretty good one every week now.

 

[Keith]

Yeah I agree with a lot of that. The only thing I will say is that the likes of Austin and Foley knew how to do a lot while seeming to not do much, they were much better sellers and masters of psyicogly than many of todays stars. Don't think wrestling is the problem right now, it is about the storylines, angles, characters and making lesser titles more important again. These are the things WWE need to focus on.