Attitude vs PG, a study of great matches.

Current low card matches can be good too. As someone said, I prefer Cesaro/Sheamus to Godfather/Val Venis. The gimmicks were over the top which worked back then I give you that. The writing is the same as script and they had more stuff for the lower guys but Jericho/HBK in 2008 and Taker/HBK in 2010 were better written than "the greater power" storyline which made zero sense.

Just an example but still. And faster paced wrestling? You must have never seen a 1999 Undertaker match.

Neither, I learn English and Vietnamese both at the same time.  English on M-F, and Vietnamese on Sat-Sunday. 

I like Val he was the first guy I thought of. And I read the "who are you to doubt" in Bret Hart's voice.

The thing that made the AE feel special was build-up, thats it, in-ring wise the current stuff is better, we have awesome matches every week and month. The problem is they are meaningless, back in the AE everyone had something to do even if the rivalry was about a dog or about a castration, yeah, some (or the majority) of the storylines were plain ridiculous and offensive, but at least they had build-up to make us care and make us buy the PPV, now only main eventers get some kind of build-up, I think everyone should have it so they can get the chance to show us what they got and evolve their characters.

That is a good point. I blame it more or the constant 50/50 booking of everything. But it would also be nice if everyone had a storyline going, much like things were in the post Russo, pre Steph era. I mean, people talk about how great the Attitude Era was, but I feel like the Cris Kreski era had it's own feel. Kreski and Heyman (his Smackdown run in 2002/03) are the best bookers they've ever had. It's a f*cking shame 99% of the people on this board don't know who Kreski was.

The Kreski era was glorious. It's why I prefer 2000 to the 98-99 stuff. At least until his run ended around No Mercy 2000 I believe. And we all know how good 2002-2003 Smackdown was.

Yeah, but that's like saying how many matches from March 98-March99 had a big match feel. Austin/Taker at Summer Slam, Foley/Taker at KotR, Austin/Vince at SVDM... maybe the 3 way cage match from Breakdown?
See, what's going on today is that the status quo is for the WWE brand to be the top draw, where as in 98-2000 Austin, Rock, and 'Taker were the draws. What happens when Rock and Austin left? A humungous drop off in ratings to the tune of like a 7. average down to a 3. average. So what they're doing, the reason why the cut the balls off of Ryder when he got over, the reason they did the same to Ziggler is because they don't want them to get anywhere near Cena's level. The only f*cking reason AT ALL Punk and Bryan were allowed to is because of Shawn speaking up for them. And those situations are playing perfectly into HHH's lap, what with Punk pulling an Austin in '02 and Bryan pulling.... well an Austin in '99.

I've been a wrestling fan since the 80's and I will say this: Today's roster is just as talented as (and sometimes more talented than) rosters of the past. There is no shortage of great athletes. The question of PG Era vs. Attitude Era, or any other era, isn't a question of TV14 vs. PG, because in my opinion the previous PG Eras - the Golden Era (1984-1993) and the New Generation (1993-1996) - had more to offer than even the beloved Attitude Era.

The atmosphere

What separates then from now is improvisation. Or atleast the feeling of it. Imagine the difference between a) Seeing your favorite band live at a concert, or b) Listening to their CD. The studio recordings are polished, perfect and controlled. Everything is crisp and by the book, because there's no room for error. The live performances on the other hand are improvisational, energetic and can change on a moments notice with the mood of the band. Every night is different, even though you're hearing the same song. 

The Attitude Era was akin to the live performance. You turned on the TV every Monday night, whether it was RAW or Nitro, and you genuinely didn't know what was going to happen. That feeling, that atmosphere, doesn't exist anymore. Guys like Austin followed a storyline, but were allowed more creative freedom over their characters. Adults were allowed to be adults instead of tamed versions of themselves. Sometimes they crashed and burned when trying to give improvised promos (see Ken Shamrock, 1998), but mostly the cream rose to the top. Can a Rock, Austin or Jericho be created in todays environment? Maybe. But it's happening with less and less frequency. And often if their newfound popularity doesn't go along with the status-quo, management pretends like it doesn't exist and buries them! Opposite what used to happen. Daniel Bryan being a glaring exception to that rule.

The matches

Were the matches better? Good question. There seem to be more Pay Per View classics from those days than there are now. But there are technically good matches nowadays. And it's tough to put my finger on why today's matches lack the lasting impact of matches from 10+ years ago. Am I remembering through rose colored glasses? No. I own every RAW and PPV from 1990-2003 as an .mp4 on my computer.

One reason that comes to mind is the pacing of matches. Back then, you could have a 20-30 minute classic without "boring" chants breaking out in the arena - if the wrestlers were engaging the audience in a 'story.' Because in-ring storytelling as an artform was more intriguing back then. 

Another reason, the finisher. What the hell is a finisher nowadays? They don't exist! Time and time again in the modern era, you hear "Oh he kicked out of the RKO! He kicked out of the GTS!" and it means nothing. Because the last PPV title defense you just had the guy kicked out of your finisher too. Back then, kicking out of finishers only happened on rare occasions or at Wrestlemania. You can probably count the times someone kicked out of a finisher on a 1998 PPV on one hand.

There are other reasons. The lost art of submission wrestling. The popularity of "kickpad" style striking. The guardrails that are so padded you'd have no hesitation throwing yourself against them just to see how it felt.

Intertwining storylines

Every single match on Raw is War did something to further the storyline. Period.

And there were always 2 or 3 storylines going on at the same time. The Rock was feuding with Undertaker in late spring, but Undertaker was also feuding with Kane and involved in a partnership with Big Show while The Rock was having problems with Billy Gunn and Chyna. All building up to what was going to happen with these guys during the summer. It never stopped. It never felt forced. It was just natural. And every match on RAW would somehow further said storylines in an unexpected way.

Stalk much? haha, 27. Why?

Hendrix, that was a great, well thought out post.
My personal taste however enjoys the King's Road influence that Johnny brought with him and merged with the "WWF" style. It was very obvious in 2001-2002 that the main event style changed. In my opinion it was for the better, but I can see how WWF purists wouldn't be the biggest fan of it happening EVERY main event. I think that it will need to evolve again however, and I think that Terry Funk is right when he says that the "worked shoot" aspect will start taking over, ALA Japan. It did wonders for The Undertaker, who was stuck in the past (style wise) from 2000-2003. When he incorporated the shooty stuff into his game his matches became great to the point of him not needing Bret or Shawn to carry him to great matches. I credit his run with Mark Henry for turning Henry into a really good worker.
The interchanging storylines were a product of the aforementioned Kreski run, where he had everything story boarded out weeks in advance. Anything that happened from 98-99 was purely coincidental as far as things flowing together - See: Russo's WCW run.