|
Post by ICW on Apr 29, 2008 5:52:55 GMT -5
1999 & 2000 WWF blew ass, called out. Nothing remotely stands out other than a handful of Foley matches. The wrestling was horrible, and it had one of the worst Wrestlemanias in the history of the show. Just my opinion. 2001 was much more entertaining. Give me 1996 or 1997 over 1999 and 2000 any day. Give me 1992 over those years too. Tag division in the Late 80's was better than in the 2000's though regardless. Hart Foundation, Demolition, Bulldogs, Rougeaus, Powers of Pain, Demolition, Rockers, Twin Towers, Colossal Connection, Bushwackers, Strike Force, blah blah blah. I dunno, nothing about the "Attitude Era" is appealing to me. 2001 was a great year as well. Just prefer 2000 over 2001.
|
|
|
Post by madi90 on Apr 29, 2008 6:09:18 GMT -5
2000-2001 was incredible.
|
|
|
Post by miserere on Apr 29, 2008 10:16:21 GMT -5
Is it coincidence that WWE started sucking once HBK came back? Or is it because of him it did? Everyone knows the best times in WWF/E were right after he left through when he came back (and through WrestleMania XIX). Probably more coincidental, since both Rock and Austin left, stories began getting stupider, WWE started going out on a limb trying to be high tech instead of spending that money in better places, etc. I just wish HBK were part of the attitude era he helped create in his absence. Imagine if he was. Imagine if he never came back, though, too.
|
|
MuffFuzz
Main Eventer
Where is he?!
Joined on: Feb 21, 2004 14:56:16 GMT -5
Posts: 2,995
|
Post by MuffFuzz on Apr 29, 2008 14:04:44 GMT -5
Commish Foley was so sweet in 2000. It was just a great year over-all.
|
|
|
Post by Lewscher on Apr 29, 2008 14:20:22 GMT -5
A'MEN...couldnt agree more, although i find it to be more attitude are that was the best wrestlinmg around with the storylines characters etc
|
|