|
Post by mvpkanyon on Apr 8, 2008 17:35:36 GMT -5
And then sometimes you get a runoutofideasition champion..
|
|
|
Post by mrchase on Apr 8, 2008 17:40:20 GMT -5
Which is why 1999 is about 4814831487384738473843x better than WWE now. no it wasn't it sucked . the best wrestling era was 1970's & 1980's. 1999 sucked because title changed hands too much & killed the meaning of the belt.1970's & 1980's were better then 1999. if anybody thinks attitude era is how your suppose to do wrestling then you are fool . attitude era was worse era ever because it taught you kids how not to do thing right in wrestling . attitude era killed what a title belt meant.attitude era was for people with ADD.
|
|
|
Post by mrchase on Apr 8, 2008 17:45:45 GMT -5
it is even in mick foleys book that is you hold the belt for 6 month or less then your a fluke & transitional champion . Which book? Which is why 1999 is about 4814831487384738473843x better than WWE now. Title changes kind of lose appeal when there one for every freaking month. it is in the first mick foley book i think abut him being transitional champion & what it means to be a transitional champion .
|
|
|
Post by ThugSuperstar on Apr 8, 2008 17:48:03 GMT -5
I don't like long title reigns anymore, probably because I hate 99% of the main eventers and don't think there are any deserving Champions in the company right now.
|
|
|
Post by mvpkanyon on Apr 8, 2008 17:49:32 GMT -5
Wrestling from the 1970's and 1980's was just...wrestling. Nothing more. Believe me, I've watched tape after tape of stuff from that period, and to be quite honest, it was boring. Wrestling just wasn't entertaining back then. It literally was just sweaty men in trunks grappling in a ring. The 90's brought in much needed entertainment value.
And the WWE title has no 'meaning'. Never has. It's just a belt put round who the WWE consider as their top face or heel. This whole 'make your way to the top to get the biggest prize of all' sob story the WWE use is meaningless. If the WWE title had meaning, and it really was for the person who did everything they say wrestlers do to get to the 'top', then wrestling would actually be a real sport.
The Attitude Era brought in 2 of the best wrestlers ever. Not for their wrestling skills, but because of what their image did for the company. The Rock and Stone Cold.
Oh, and the way wrestling 'was done' in 1999 > the way wrestling 'was done' before that. The storylines were some of the best the WWE has ever done just on sheer entertainment alone. Yes they were far fetched, yes some just got silly, but it was great to watch.
|
|
|
Post by cenaroxorz123 on Apr 8, 2008 17:50:32 GMT -5
Also there have actually been 14 title changes from 2003-2008.
|
|
|
Post by ThugSuperstar on Apr 8, 2008 17:51:13 GMT -5
Wrestling from the 1970's and 1980's was just...wrestling. Nothing more. Believe me, I've watched tape after tape of stuff from that period, and to be quite honest, it was boring. Wrestling just wasn't entertaining back then. It literally was just sweaty men in trunks grappling in a ring. The 90's brought in much needed entertainment value. And the WWE title has no 'meaning'. Never has. It's just a belt put round who the WWE consider as their top face or heel. This whole 'make your way to the top to get the biggest prize of all' sob story the WWE use is meaningless. If the WWE title had meaning, and it really was for the person who did everything they say wrestlers do to get to the 'top', then wrestling would actually be a real sport. The Attitude Era brought in 2 of the best wrestlers ever. Not for their wrestling skills, but because of what their image did for the company. The Rock and Stone Cold. Oh, and the way wrestling 'was done' in 1999 > the way wrestling 'was done' before that. The storylines were some of the best the WWE has ever done just on sheer entertainment alone. Yes they were far fetched, yes some just got silly, but it was great to watch. Bra-vo. ;D
|
|
|
Post by mrchase on Apr 8, 2008 18:04:40 GMT -5
Wrestling from the 1970's and 1980's was just...wrestling. Nothing more. Believe me, I've watched tape after tape of stuff from that period, and to be quite honest, it was boring. Wrestling just wasn't entertaining back then. It literally was just sweaty men in trunks grappling in a ring. The 90's brought in much needed entertainment value. And the WWE title has no 'meaning'. Never has. It's just a belt put round who the WWE consider as their top face or heel. This whole 'make your way to the top to get the biggest prize of all' sob story the WWE use is meaningless. If the WWE title had meaning, and it really was for the person who did everything they say wrestlers do to get to the 'top', then wrestling would actually be a real sport. The Attitude Era brought in 2 of the best wrestlers ever. Not for their wrestling skills, but because of what their image did for the company. The Rock and Stone Cold. Oh, and the way wrestling 'was done' in 1999 > the way wrestling 'was done' before that. The storylines were some of the best the WWE has ever done just on sheer entertainment alone. Yes they were far fetched, yes some just got silly, but it was great to watch. see you are wrong about that WWe did not make those rules up about 'make your way to the top to get the biggest prize of all' . that is old wrestling rules from the begin of wrestling. The Attitude Era did not bring 2 of the best wrestlers ever. stone cold was wrestling is early 190's . so Attitude Era did not brring you steve austin. The rock is in no way the best wrestler ever. rock sucked in the ring . rock was only good for talking.so what if you watched tapes. that does not mean you know crap about wrestling or understand it right. the only way you could understand it is to be from that era like me. . if you thought they were boring then you are not a pro-wrestling fan but a sports entertainment fan.Wrestling from the 1970's and 1980's were some of the greatest wresler even compared to today or the 1990's. old school uis laways better then new school. today wrestlers are punks compared to old school wrestling. todays wrestlers don't even have it a tough as the old school did . the rign was harder then it was today & you really had to pay you dues bakc then.it seems you don't like wrestling but you like entertainment but this pro-wrestling not entertainment.WWe title has had meaning since the 1960's. so the shows how much you stupid ignorant self knows.this just shows you have no idea how wrestling works at all . .
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 8, 2008 18:10:35 GMT -5
I don't like long title reigns anymore, probably because I hate 99% of the main eventers and don't think there are any deserving Champions in the company right now. I would tend to agree. I think Flair made the point that back when he won the Rumble for the championship that there were a ton of guys in the match who would've made credible champions. (Personally, I count 10 or 11.) There aren't that many guys on the roster nowadays who are deserving champions. My list of guys I could consider worthy champions - Taker, HBK, HHH, Cena , JBL (big longshot), and maybe Show. Thje other guys just lack the entertainment skills and "it" factor as far as I"m concerned.
|
|
|
Post by mvpkanyon on Apr 8, 2008 18:13:15 GMT -5
Wrestling from the 1970's and 1980's was just...wrestling. Nothing more. Believe me, I've watched tape after tape of stuff from that period, and to be quite honest, it was boring. Wrestling just wasn't entertaining back then. It literally was just sweaty men in trunks grappling in a ring. The 90's brought in much needed entertainment value. And the WWE title has no 'meaning'. Never has. It's just a belt put round who the WWE consider as their top face or heel. This whole 'make your way to the top to get the biggest prize of all' sob story the WWE use is meaningless. If the WWE title had meaning, and it really was for the person who did everything they say wrestlers do to get to the 'top', then wrestling would actually be a real sport. The Attitude Era brought in 2 of the best wrestlers ever. Not for their wrestling skills, but because of what their image did for the company. The Rock and Stone Cold. Oh, and the way wrestling 'was done' in 1999 > the way wrestling 'was done' before that. The storylines were some of the best the WWE has ever done just on sheer entertainment alone. Yes they were far fetched, yes some just got silly, but it was great to watch. see you are wrong about that WWe did not make those rules up about 'make your way to the top to get the biggest prize of all' . that is old wrestling rules from the begin of wrestling. The Attitude Era did not bring 2 of the best wrestlers ever. stone cold was wrestling is early 190's . so Attitude Era did not brring you steve austin. The rock is in no way the best wrestler ever. rock sucked in the ring . rock was only good for talking.so what if you watched tapes. that does not mean you know crap about wrestling or understand it right. the only way you could understand it is to be from that era like me. . if you thought they were boring then you are not a pro-wrestling fan but a sports entertainment fan.Wrestling from the 1970's and 1980's were some of the greatest wresler even compared to today or the 1990's. old school uis laways better then new school. today wrestlers are punks compared to old school wrestling. todays wrestlers don't even have it a tough as the old school did . the rign was harder then it was today & you really had to pay you dues bakc then.it seems you don't like wrestling but you like entertainment but this pro-wrestling not entertainment.WWe title has had meaning since the 1960's. so the shows how much you stupid ignorant self knows.this just shows you have no idea how wrestling works at all . . Alright then, if you're gonna be a smug bitch about it, fine. You don't need to keep ramming down everyones throats that you were there through the 70s and 80s. We get it. You're old. Move on. And yes, Stone Cold was wrestling the early 90s, but he wasn't over in the way that has made his legacy still highly thought of today until the Attitude era was brought in and Stone Cold started drinking beer and giving everyone the middle finger. LIKE I SAID, The Rock and Stone Cold might not have been the best wrestlers, but they were two that came out of that time period with the most success because they were the top drawers in the company and their crowd reactions were met by no other in the WWE at that time. They were over, regardless of their wrestling talents. And yes, I am a sports entertainment fan. I am not a fan of wrestling in your day, Grandad. I like to be entertained, not watch JUST wrestling alone. Yeah it probably was tougher then. Not that I care, of course. Wrestling has changed for the better, IN MY OPINION. Oh, yeah, about the 'make the way to the top' thing. It doesn't matter what time frame that came from, it's still completely meaningless today.
|
|
|
Post by The 'Rated R Superstar' Edge on Apr 8, 2008 18:17:02 GMT -5
That's a good point. WWE need to learn that a Cena year reign = bad ratings. Fair enough it was an exciting superstar.
|
|
|
Post by King Shocker the Monumentous on Apr 8, 2008 18:22:36 GMT -5
OK, I can see where this is going. The old-school wrestling fan who's read every wrestling book known to man, but never an English book, is going to insult everyone that isn't him, and we're going to end in a huge argument where it wasn't really necessary.
"Holier-than-thou" attitudes come across a lot better with proper spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.
|
|