robbutler01
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 10, 2013 15:10:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,282
|
Post by robbutler01 on Nov 7, 2016 8:08:44 GMT -5
Golden Era without question for me.
Started watching in 89 and didn't look back (until recently)
Awesome rosters, Awesome tag teams, Proper build to PPV's, Heenan and Monsoon (that's enough to pick this era by itself) Mega Powers explode, Ultimate challenge, debut of Ric Flair and the 92 Rumble. Soooooooo many great things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Abed on Nov 7, 2016 8:34:15 GMT -5
Attitude Era and Ruthless Aggression Eras. Hard for me to pick one over the other. I just loved how every guy on the card from top to bottom had a purpose, a gimmick that was made for a specific part on the show.
The mid card has been an absolute sore spot in recent years. But I loved to see guys like Jericho, Guerrero, Mysterio, Edge, Christian, Hardy, Orton, Batista, Cena, Angle, RVD, etc... get the push they deserved from solid mid card matches into the main event.
Also was the last time period where guys seemed truly larger than life. Goldberg, Lesnar, Rock, Austin, Undertaker, HBK, Triple H, Hogan, and others. Today everyone just seems like a gym rat and no one (besides maybe Lesnar) seems like the legit threats that those guys were.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sizzle on Nov 7, 2016 8:52:43 GMT -5
Attitude Era and Ruthless Aggression Eras. Hard for me to pick one over the other. I just loved how every guy on the card from top to bottom had a purpose, a gimmick that was made for a specific part on the show. The mid card has been an absolute sore spot in recent years. But I loved to see guys like Jericho, Guerrero, Mysterio, Edge, Christian, Hardy, Orton, Batista, Cena, Angle, RVD, etc... get the push they deserved from solid mid card matches into the main event. Also was the last time period where guys seemed truly larger than life. Goldberg, Lesnar, Rock, Austin, Undertaker, HBK, Triple H, Hogan, and others. Today everyone just seems like a gym rat and no one (besides maybe Lesnar) seems like the legit threats that those guys were. I miss those days. |
|
bigraj
Main Eventer
PSN: bigraj70501
Joined on: Nov 5, 2010 16:46:40 GMT -5
Posts: 1,779
|
Post by bigraj on Nov 7, 2016 9:25:45 GMT -5
Overall, the 80s as a whole. Pretty good stuff from the territories, even as WWF, JCP, and other factors were killing them. Mid-South and WCCW in particular had very strong periods. Don't remember seeing any WWF shows here until the leadup to the first WM, but guys like Santana and Savage were early standouts, along with familiar faces like Piper and Valentine. The NWA/JCP stuff on TBS had lots of cool promos and fun squashes. It continued to be awesome as WWF and WCW absorbed all the talent from the territories. I loved seeing former "local" talent like JYD, DiBiase, Terry Taylor, One Man Gang, Sting, Rick Steiner and others finally getting a shot at the big leagues. Sure, it didn't work out great for everybody, but that's how it is. And all of it was leading up to an awesome 1989. The Mega-Powers Explode, Warrior-Rude, The rise of Mr. Perfect, Flair-Steamboat, Flair-Funk, Sting-Muta, Luger-Steamboat, and the tag divisions in both companies were deep with talent.
For WWF/E specifically: the overlapping period from the Attitude to Ruthless Aggression. The in-ring product was the best I've ever seen in the company. Getting guys like Austin, Rock, HHH, etc. pushed to the limit by Jericho, Benoit, Angle, Guerrero, etc. made for really great TV and classic PPV matches.
|
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Nov 10, 2016 20:52:32 GMT -5
Was "Ruthless Agression" ever defined as an era? I mean the logo never changed, there was never marketing behind a ruthless agression era like the attitude adverts and such, sure it was mentioned on tv and figures but none more so than the reality era and all that crap. For me there are 3 destinct era's...golden age/era , new generation and the attitude era, I still dont think we have really left the PG era...its a bit of a blur to me as to what era's have come and gone since "attitude". Yes, definitely. The WWF buying WCW changed the landscape of wrestling and technically, the logo changed when they changed their name to WWE. IMO, the Ruthless Aggression Era started from the ashes of the failed Invasion storyline and ended in late 2007 when John Cena got injured and his epic World title run came to an end. The reason you dont hear much about it is because Chris Benoit was a major part of that era. Also, there is no love for other companies in this poll? WCW Monday Night War 1996-1998 was a great time to be a fan and if it wasnt for early 90s WCW, I mightve stopped watching wrestling with the crap the WWF New Generation Era was putting out. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Nov 10, 2016 22:11:04 GMT -5
I'm about 93-98. Most of Shawn Michaels' first great run.
|
|
mrassbillygunn
Main Eventer
WF 10+ Year Member
Joined on: Jul 23, 2011 19:35:48 GMT -5
Posts: 4,299
|
Post by mrassbillygunn on Nov 10, 2016 23:39:19 GMT -5
Was "Ruthless Agression" ever defined as an era? I mean the logo never changed, there was never marketing behind a ruthless agression era like the attitude adverts and such, sure it was mentioned on tv and figures but none more so than the reality era and all that crap. For me there are 3 destinct era's...golden age/era , new generation and the attitude era, I still dont think we have really left the PG era...its a bit of a blur to me as to what era's have come and gone since "attitude". Yes, definitely. The WWF buying WCW changed the landscape of wrestling and technically, the logo changed when they changed their name to WWE. IMO, the Ruthless Aggression Era started from the ashes of the failed Invasion storyline and ended in late 2007 when John Cena got injured and his epic World title run came to an end. The reason you dont hear much about it is because Chris Benoit was a major part of that era. Also, there is no love for other companies in this poll? WCW Monday Night War 1996-1998 was a great time to be a fan and if it wasnt for early 90s WCW, I mightve stopped watching wrestling with the crap the WWF New Generation Era was putting out. I dont believe Ruthless Agression was ever defined as an era. I know Vince used the phrase in a promo but the term is not very clear or distinct, many meanings can be derived from it and as such it would not be a good marketing ploy. A new generation is exactly that, an attitude era is exactly that, a pg era is exactly that, they almost sound like absolutes hence why I dont buy the ruthless aggression era and I will never accept it as an era, its rather just a coinage term expressed by the IWC and expanded upon when Vince first mentioned it. It would be wholly rejected by marketing guru's in business because it has a very broad meaning. Are we in a reailty era? some people say we still havent left the PG era...some say of a new era, its all just a bit messy. However, thats just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Sizzle on Nov 11, 2016 1:35:01 GMT -5
Yes, definitely. The WWF buying WCW changed the landscape of wrestling and technically, the logo changed when they changed their name to WWE. IMO, the Ruthless Aggression Era started from the ashes of the failed Invasion storyline and ended in late 2007 when John Cena got injured and his epic World title run came to an end. The reason you dont hear much about it is because Chris Benoit was a major part of that era. Also, there is no love for other companies in this poll? WCW Monday Night War 1996-1998 was a great time to be a fan and if it wasnt for early 90s WCW, I mightve stopped watching wrestling with the crap the WWF New Generation Era was putting out. I dont believe Ruthless Agression was ever defined as an era. I know Vince used the phrase in a promo but the term is not very clear or distinct, many meanings can be derived from it and as such it would not be a good marketing ploy. A new generation is exactly that, an attitude era is exactly that, a pg era is exactly that, they almost sound like absolutes hence why I dont buy the ruthless aggression era and I will never accept it as an era, its rather just a coinage term expressed by the IWC and expanded upon when Vince first mentioned it. It would be wholly rejected by marketing guru's in business because it has a very broad meaning. Are we in a reailty era? some people say we still havent left the PG era...some say of a new era, its all just a bit messy. However, thats just my opinion. That would mean the Golden Era wasn't an era because (correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think people referred to the 80s as "The Golden Era" in the 80s. The ruthless aggression era was defined as an era and was marketed, just like the attitude era. I don't get what you don't get? |
|
robbutler01
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 10, 2013 15:10:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,282
|
Post by robbutler01 on Nov 11, 2016 12:38:59 GMT -5
Also, there is no love for other companies in this poll? WCW Monday Night War 1996-1998 was a great time to be a fan and if it wasnt for early 90s WCW, I mightve stopped watching wrestling with the crap the WWF New Generation Era was putting out. Agree about wcw was an awesome time to watch. Eric assembled a phenomenal roster and it was must see TV. Got to see several dream matches that Wwf never pulled off, and it pushed the industry so high! Truly miss the unpredictable Monday buzz! |
|
mrassbillygunn
Main Eventer
WF 10+ Year Member
Joined on: Jul 23, 2011 19:35:48 GMT -5
Posts: 4,299
|
Post by mrassbillygunn on Nov 11, 2016 20:49:10 GMT -5
I dont believe Ruthless Agression was ever defined as an era. I know Vince used the phrase in a promo but the term is not very clear or distinct, many meanings can be derived from it and as such it would not be a good marketing ploy. A new generation is exactly that, an attitude era is exactly that, a pg era is exactly that, they almost sound like absolutes hence why I dont buy the ruthless aggression era and I will never accept it as an era, its rather just a coinage term expressed by the IWC and expanded upon when Vince first mentioned it. It would be wholly rejected by marketing guru's in business because it has a very broad meaning. Are we in a reailty era? some people say we still havent left the PG era...some say of a new era, its all just a bit messy. However, thats just my opinion. That would mean the Golden Era wasn't an era because (correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think people referred to the 80s as "The Golden Era" in the 80s. The ruthless aggression era was defined as an era and was marketed, just like the attitude era. I don't get what you don't get? I believe the only relevant marketing it got was the ruthless agression action figures which is hardly on par with the attitude era and such. There was so much more marketing behind the attitude and new generation era's that this so called "Ruthless Agression" era didnt even compare. I dont even recall any documentary on any WWE dvd mentioning the ruthless agression era in the same way as the new generation and attitude era frequently gets mentioned by various wrestlers. Ruthless Agression is an era that was exagerated and expanded upon by the IWC and has very little credibility as a defined era. Golden era - Popularity through the roof,becomes global and becomes a cult phenomenon. New generation - new breed of younger wrestlers with more innovation. I get that. Attitude - Cool, gritty, explicit...everything that sums up "attitude". Ruthless Agression - ....aggression? I dont get it, its a horrible phrase. PG era - Family friendly entertainment for the most part. Reality era - Which we are in now. Its a very authentic product from everything to ring names, embracing social media, match style, the announcers, the shows like talking smack etc all have a very CNN feel to them. Its all very reality based. But ruthless aggression? Its lacking a core ideology of sorts. People will argue and may well have their points but im not convinced one bit it was ever meant to be an official "era". Vince expressed ruthless agression as making him the man that he is...so where did he ever mention it as an era? Those years described as the ruthless agression era are best described as a transitional perioud of WWE and ruthless agression became the IWC popular phrase to describe it, I doubt very many fans at the time were calling it the ruthless agression era, I certainly didnt and I was watching back then. It became a past tense phrase to describe those years. It isnt an authentic era like the others in my opinion. As for your first point about the golden era I dont get what you're saying. For me, that was when WWE become global, I mean my granny knew Hulk Hogan and that sums up how global it became. As we look back it is certainly described as a golden era but at the time im sure it was also described as a golden era by fans and insiders of the business. |
|
|
|
Post by Sizzle on Nov 11, 2016 21:12:56 GMT -5
That would mean the Golden Era wasn't an era because (correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think people referred to the 80s as "The Golden Era" in the 80s. The ruthless aggression era was defined as an era and was marketed, just like the attitude era. I don't get what you don't get? I believe the only relevant marketing it got was the ruthless agression action figures which is hardly on par with the attitude era and such. There was so much more marketing behind the attitude and new generation era's that this so called "Ruthless Agression" era didnt even compare. I dont even recall any documentary on any WWE dvd mentioning the ruthless agression era in the same way as the new generation and attitude era frequently gets mentioned by various wrestlers. Ruthless Agression is an era that was exagerated and expanded upon by the IWC and has very little credibility as a defined era. Golden era - Popularity through the roof,becomes global and becomes a cult phenomenon. New generation - new breed of younger wrestlers with more innovation. I get that. Attitude - Cool, gritty, explicit...everything that sums up "attitude". Ruthless Agression - ....aggression? I dont get it, its a horrible phrase. PG era - Family friendly entertainment for the most part. Reality era - Which we are in now. Its a very authentic product from everything to ring names, embracing social media, match style, the announcers, the shows like talking smack etc all have a very CNN feel to them. Its all very reality based. But ruthless aggression? Its lacking a core ideology of sorts. People will argue and may well have their points but im not convinced one bit it was ever meant to be an official "era". Vince expressed ruthless agression as making him the man that he is...so where did he ever mention it as an era? Those years described as the ruthless agression era are best described as a transitional perioud of WWE and ruthless agression became the IWC popular phrase to describe it, I doubt very many fans at the time were calling it the ruthless agression era, I certainly didnt and I was watching back then. It became a past tense phrase to describe those years. It isnt an authentic era like the others in my opinion. As for your first point about the golden era I dont get what you're saying. For me, that was when WWE become global, I mean my granny knew Hulk Hogan and that sums up how global it became. As we look back it is certainly described as a golden era but at the time im sure it was also described as a golden era by fans and insiders of the business. No one referred to the era of the 80s as the Golden Era until years later. So your reasoning behind the phrase "Ruthless Aggression" and it not being an era applies to the Golden Era as well. "Golden" doesn't represent anything like "Attitude" or "New Generation" or "Reality" do. During the Golden Era no one called it the Golden Era, but apparently that's a requirement to be an era? It's as authentic an era as any of them. It represented the time of the brand split, the new guys after the Attitude guys left. It's even referred to in WWE 2K14 and was parodied by Benoit. When WWE tried to brand the new brand split as the "New Era", that's blatantly obvious that they're trying to name and market it, and the Ruthless Aggression era might not have been marketed massively, but it is still an era, it jut wasn't forcing the name. |
|
mrassbillygunn
Main Eventer
WF 10+ Year Member
Joined on: Jul 23, 2011 19:35:48 GMT -5
Posts: 4,299
|
Post by mrassbillygunn on Nov 11, 2016 21:27:39 GMT -5
I believe the only relevant marketing it got was the ruthless agression action figures which is hardly on par with the attitude era and such. There was so much more marketing behind the attitude and new generation era's that this so called "Ruthless Agression" era didnt even compare. I dont even recall any documentary on any WWE dvd mentioning the ruthless agression era in the same way as the new generation and attitude era frequently gets mentioned by various wrestlers. Ruthless Agression is an era that was exagerated and expanded upon by the IWC and has very little credibility as a defined era. Golden era - Popularity through the roof,becomes global and becomes a cult phenomenon. New generation - new breed of younger wrestlers with more innovation. I get that. Attitude - Cool, gritty, explicit...everything that sums up "attitude". Ruthless Agression - ....aggression? I dont get it, its a horrible phrase. PG era - Family friendly entertainment for the most part. Reality era - Which we are in now. Its a very authentic product from everything to ring names, embracing social media, match style, the announcers, the shows like talking smack etc all have a very CNN feel to them. Its all very reality based. But ruthless aggression? Its lacking a core ideology of sorts. People will argue and may well have their points but im not convinced one bit it was ever meant to be an official "era". Vince expressed ruthless agression as making him the man that he is...so where did he ever mention it as an era? Those years described as the ruthless agression era are best described as a transitional perioud of WWE and ruthless agression became the IWC popular phrase to describe it, I doubt very many fans at the time were calling it the ruthless agression era, I certainly didnt and I was watching back then. It became a past tense phrase to describe those years. It isnt an authentic era like the others in my opinion. As for your first point about the golden era I dont get what you're saying. For me, that was when WWE become global, I mean my granny knew Hulk Hogan and that sums up how global it became. As we look back it is certainly described as a golden era but at the time im sure it was also described as a golden era by fans and insiders of the business. No one referred to the era of the 80s as the Golden Era until years later. So your reasoning behind the phrase "Ruthless Aggression" and it not being an era applies to the Golden Era as well. "Golden" doesn't represent anything like "Attitude" or "New Generation" or "Reality" do. During the Golden Era no one called it the Golden Era, but apparently that's a requirement to be an era? It's as authentic an era as any of them. It represented the time of the brand split, the new guys after the Attitude guys left. It's even referred to in WWE 2K14 and was parodied by Benoit. When WWE tried to brand the new brand split as the "New Era", that's blatantly obvious that they're trying to name and market it, and the Ruthless Aggression era might not have been marketed massively, but it is still an era, it jut wasn't forcing the name. The thing is you CAN look back and see a clear distinction for a golden era...YOU CANT with the ruthless agression era. You are failing to grasp my argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Sizzle on Nov 11, 2016 21:59:27 GMT -5
No one referred to the era of the 80s as the Golden Era until years later. So your reasoning behind the phrase "Ruthless Aggression" and it not being an era applies to the Golden Era as well. "Golden" doesn't represent anything like "Attitude" or "New Generation" or "Reality" do. During the Golden Era no one called it the Golden Era, but apparently that's a requirement to be an era? It's as authentic an era as any of them. It represented the time of the brand split, the new guys after the Attitude guys left. It's even referred to in WWE 2K14 and was parodied by Benoit. When WWE tried to brand the new brand split as the "New Era", that's blatantly obvious that they're trying to name and market it, and the Ruthless Aggression era might not have been marketed massively, but it is still an era, it jut wasn't forcing the name. The thing is you CAN look back and see a clear distinction for a golden era...YOU CANT with the ruthless agression era. You are failing to grasp my argument. I can see a clear distinction for the Ruthless Aggression Era. The beginning of the brand split through the start of PG. |
|
|
|
Post by TheLastDude on Nov 11, 2016 22:04:58 GMT -5
Mid 80's to mid 90's for me.
|
|
mrassbillygunn
Main Eventer
WF 10+ Year Member
Joined on: Jul 23, 2011 19:35:48 GMT -5
Posts: 4,299
|
Post by mrassbillygunn on Nov 11, 2016 22:32:08 GMT -5
The thing is you CAN look back and see a clear distinction for a golden era...YOU CANT with the ruthless agression era. You are failing to grasp my argument. I can see a clear distinction for the Ruthless Aggression Era. The beginning of the brand split through the start of PG. I dont think thats a very clear distinction at all. Why not call it the brand extension era? has more credibility than "ruthless agression". What are the common themes between a brand extension and ruthless agression. Its sooooo blurred, I really cant see how you can define a ruthless agression era. |
|
TeamKennedy
Superstar
WF 10+ Year Member
Original Join Date: June 2008
Joined on: Jul 11, 2011 18:44:25 GMT -5
Posts: 595
|
Post by TeamKennedy on Nov 26, 2016 3:21:50 GMT -5
Definitely the Ruthless Aggression era. Late 2002 to early 2004 was when I feel the product was at the top (This is actually wining the poll right now, so I'm not going to speak much on this era.)
But, I think 2007-2008 (Early PG era) was a pretty good year as well, however a small part of that may be due to nostalgia (Started watching Wrestling in summer of 2007 and really got into it in January of 2008) Batista/Undertaker was an incredible feud especially the draw match on SmackDown in the Steel Cage, their Hell in a Cell match at Survivor Series 2007, and Armageddon 2007 match with Edge joining the mix. Then went into the Undertaker/Edge feud that lasted a few months until WrestleMania. The Chavo/CM Punk fued was also a pretty solid angle, really the only time I think the ECW show was any good (Not counting actual ECW of course, only the hour long show from 2006-2009). Also Christ Jericho returning to feud with JBL for a couple months was nice as well. This time also featured the early Cena/Orton feud when it still had some energy and creativity in it. Vladimir Koslov was also a crazy character that I loved until 2009 hit and he became a Jobber. Additionally CM Punk's cash in was one of the best MITB cash ins of all time (A close second is definitely the first cash in at NYR with Edge.) I also like Jeff's run here with wining the WHC at Armageddon 2008 (Although, I think the Matt Hardy feud storyline was even better in early 2009). Another great moment was the HBK/Flair retirement at WM24.
Unfortunately I feel with WWE going PG and transitioning into a more family product overall definitely had it's downsides. With this era also came more "goofy" characters in the WWE like Santino Marella, the Great Khali's Kiss Cam, or Colin Delanely always getting beat by powerhouses on ECW. And I think this is one of the things that ultimately killed the WWE and pro-wrestling overall, as you couldn't really take the product serious anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Brain on Nov 26, 2016 3:34:28 GMT -5
Late 80s/early 90s will forever be my favorite. Wrestling has never been that good since and sadly never will again...
|
|
robbutler01
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 10, 2013 15:10:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,282
|
Post by robbutler01 on Nov 26, 2016 4:32:00 GMT -5
A lot if people prefer the era they grew up in but I think growing up in the golden era 80s to mid 90s was awesome as Kayfabe was alive and it was easy to get invested in characters when u believed in what was happening.
As a kid I believed hogan was hurt by quake, Jake was blinded by martel etc. The apter mags kept it going whereas now someone is injured and they pop up on a mainstream programme perfectly fine, bray wyatt lives on a compound in the middle of nowhere but is civilised enough that he has Internet so he can tweet people and lana is Russian apart from when she's on total divas!
It just doesn't work the same anymore for me but obviously it does for others. Thank goodness for forums so we can remember what we enjoyed
|
|
|
|
Post by The Brain on Nov 26, 2016 4:58:45 GMT -5
A lot if people prefer the era they grew up in but I think growing up in the golden era 80s to mid 90s was awesome as Kayfabe was alive and it was easy to get invested in characters when u believed in what was happening. As a kid I believed hogan was hurt by quake, Jake was blinded by martel etc. The apter mags kept it going whereas now someone is injured and they pop up on a mainstream programme perfectly fine, bray wyatt lives on a compound in the middle of nowhere but is civilised enough that he has Internet so he can tweet people and lana is Russian apart from when she's on total divas! It just doesn't work the same anymore for me but obviously it does for others. Thank goodness for forums so we can remember what we enjoyed My thoughts exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Nov 26, 2016 22:46:43 GMT -5
I started watching full time in 1994 (I was 4), and have gone back and watched much of the Sammartino-Hogan years. By far my favorite era was the Ruthless Aggression era, specifically 2002-2005.
I felt we had great storylines (mainly SD but Raw was solid as well) and amazing in-ring action. After 2005 SD became the "B" show to me and everything started to go down quality wise. I loved 1994-2001, but 2002-2005 was the most fun I've ever had as a fan.
|
|
