Internet smarks have been complaining about the stale WWF product today. But I disagree. Sure, the product ain't the great excitement and shock value as was WWF Attitude, and the all around fun that was Rock-n-Wrestling in the 1980's. But the product is still solid. And even more so when you compare it to early 90's WWF. Think about: The so called "New Generation" had more sucky wrestlers today. While columnists made complain about Big Show and Undertaker, look what we had to deal with in the early 90's: Kwang, Men On A Mission, Abe "Knuckleball" Schwartz, Phantsio, Xanta Claus, Goon, Duke "the Dumpster" Droz, the Blu brothers, Heavy Meatal; the list goes on and on. And while Shawn Michelals and Bret Hart were the best wrestlers of the day, there are more today: Stone Cold Steve Austin, Triple H, The Rock, Kurt Angle, Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, and Rob Van Damn. The smarks also complain about decent booking and good matches but there have been good, maybe even classic matches today: Austin vs. Angle at Summerslam, Rock vs. Jericho No Mercy and more. The smarks also complain about terrible angles, but hey, THERE HAVE BEEN WORSE: Austin/Pillman gun angle, Phineas loves Sunny, Cloudy, Gang Wars. The nWo could be another bad angle or a good one we shall see. So in closing, the WWF ain't so bad today as it was in the past.
I agree with you on this one. I hate the whole "sky is falling" mentality that everyone loves to buy into. We all made a big deal about the falling ratings as if we have seats on the WWF board. RAW is still by far the highest rated show on cable, its just not blowing the roof off like it was a few years ago. The WWF has its good moments and its bad moments. Smarks ALWAYS complain, even though the product improves for the most part, everyday. No one is ever satisfied with the product. Everytime theyre is a RAW someone loves, 10 more people hate it. For once Id love to see a column where someone sounds off on how much they love the WWF and its direction with some of the passion that they use to bash it.
For once Id love to see a column where someone sounds off on how much they love the WWF and its direction with some of the passion that they use to bash it.
Dude, NO ONE wants to see that more than I do. But it seems to me that for every one of us who wants to read something positive about the WWF, there are 100 more net-sheep who wanna read about whatever the haters feel like bashing this week.
I agree and disagree (but not a lot) with what's been said so far.
There is a lot of complaining about the WWF product right now. And the product may seem better now than it did back then, but the climate then and now are different and what we expected then isn't what we expect now and vice versa.
Time and moods change and it just seems that the current mood is to criticize and pick apart and harp on every little illogical plot point and character flaw and this'll never change. I think the Internet has spawned this negativity, allowing people to get together and share and steal ideas. And it's disappointing that people have to spread so much negativity.
If the so-called "smarks" and internet wrestling fans are indeed fans, then they would comment on the negative, do some fantasy booking, and then focus on the good. I think most "fans" who complain (Let me admit that I am a fan and I've done a lot of complaining about the product is stale right now. But I realize that it isn't as terrible as some ugly angles and matches that've been previously mentioned.) aren't really fans; they're just "anti-fans."
A "fan" by definition is "an ethusiastic follower or admirer." Taking the definition further, "fan" is derived from "fanatic" (maybe it's not, I'm making an educated guess), which is one who is "marked by excessive enthusiasm and often uncritical devotion."
[I know it says "often." But I don't see how someone can be so emotional about something they claim to like and pick it apart.]
So I suppose a "fan" could be so enthusiastic about the current product and in his fervor complain on a message board or web column in the hopes of getting the product changed to his liking (fat chance--most of the time the person just wants to voice his opinion and get it heard, perhaps believing he speaks for the silent ones who think the way he does). BUT, let's look at the phrase "uncritical devotion." Or how about "uncritical"?
"not critical, lacking in discrimination."
Bottom line: If you're a "fan," then bitch, but also praise. But if all you do is bitch, then don't watch anymore.
Originally posted by Tha Puerto Rican ...there have been good, maybe even classic matches today: Austin vs. Angle at Summerslam, Rock vs. Jericho No Mercy and more.
This is a little off topic, but I didn't think that Austin Vs. Angle at Summerslam was that good. I watched it for the first time a few weeks ago and it really didn't do anything for me. I found it to be slow, boring, and way too long for what they were doing with it.
Roster, at least. This is the greatest assembly of talent I've ever seen, and maybe old timers have seen better, but I doubt it. Hell, I've even liked UT for the past month. I am just not happy how the guys are used. So I post. And criticism isn't hate, it is observation and speculation. When and if they drive me to stop watching, I won't be reading this forum either. The mere fact we spend time talking about the product, even to criticize, is support.
I think the WWF is just suffering from setting its expectations so high. In the early 90's, they could get away with several squashes on TV. Now, they have proven they can produce a string of great TV shows with many competitive characters, so people expect it of them.
If you set your expectations low enough, you will never fail.
Well, I don't know about you, MarchofthePigs but watching Austin v Angle at Summerslam was just... I dunno. It had me so wrapped up in the storyline. I really wanted to see Angle get the win, and I was dreading Austin getting away with the belt. I thought that match was just awesome, something that didn't happen for me with the Unforgiven match (then I felt Angle had no chance of losing whatsoever). Of course, the next day everybody was ranting about how the end ref DQ could be seen 'a mile away' (which I couldn't, I just assumed Nick Patrick would do a fast count) and that the screwjob ruined the match. I didn't feel that at all, and was a little miffed that everybody was tarnishing such a great match.
Originally posted by JaguarWell, I don't know about you, MarchofthePigs but watching Austin v Angle at Summerslam was just... I dunno. It had me so wrapped up in the storyline. I really wanted to see Angle get the win, and I was dreading Austin getting away with the belt. I thought that match was just awesome, something that didn't happen for me with the Unforgiven match (then I felt Angle had no chance of losing whatsoever). Of course, the next day everybody was ranting about how the end ref DQ could be seen 'a mile away' (which I couldn't, I just assumed Nick Patrick would do a fast count) and that the screwjob ruined the match. I didn't feel that at all, and was a little miffed that everybody was tarnishing such a great match.
Maybe it was because I allready knew how the match was going to end, so the suspense was gone, but it wasn't even the finish that killed the match for me, I just never got into it at all. I just kept saying to myself when is this gonna end, how could everyone give this such high praise. Maybe i should go back and watch it again.
I guess some people have a warm nostalgia for mid-80s WWF, but I thought it was terrible...almost nothing but squash matches on television, a champion who never lost and whose matches followed the same dull-ass pattern every time, and some really retarded skits and gimmicks. I consider the "Rock and Wrestling" period to be one of the worst periods of any wrestling promotion, ever, at least as far as entertainment goes. But they were making money hand over fist, so what do I know...
Worst of all time is probably the last few years of WCW, The last year of ECW is a very distant third, but that was probably due to lack of resources and talent leaving the promotion.
"I'm not on some big ego rush. I'm not after the bright lights and the little women."--Stan Hansen.
I don't think anyone could possibly make the argument that the WWF (circa early '90s) is better than the current product.
But is the current product as good as it can be? In my opinion... no. Not with Stephanie and Vince getting all this airtime and taking the focus away from the wrestling and onto their ongoing family saga. This McMahon thing has been going on for almost four years now, and it really, truly is getting old.
But I don't feel that a change to a strictly wrestling program is a good idea, either. All I'm saying is that the WWF should keep a tight balance between sports-entertainment and wrestling.
And WTF... speaking as a WCW fan... the last year or so of WCW was indeed painful to watch. What makes that so sad is that WCW always had the talent, they just never seemed to have any long-term direction. With the roster WCW had going into 2000, they could've caught up with the WWF by now-- but they screwed the fans, and they screwed themselves.
“I didn't say it would be easy, Neo. I just said it would be the truth.”
The issue is that the WWF has alot more potential than it did in the 90s. They have one of the most athletic and skilled wrestlers they have ever had. So yes, I will be critical of them when they don't utilize them properly. I mean, with the cast of characters and wrestlers on the roaster right now, we should have classic RAWs every week. But we don't. We have a family that is determined to take the spotlight from the wrestlers.
The fact they are not reaching the potential is the reason for the bitching.
January 4th 1999 - The day WCW injected itself with 10 gallons of Liquid Anthrax...AKA...The day Hogan "Defeated" Nash to win the WCW title in front of 40,000.
Then what can the WWF do to make the product better? What would make every RAW a classic? More wrestling? Better wrestling? Swerves? Shocking plot twists? I think that no matter what they do, there is always going to be someone who is unhappy. That's just the way it is. The wwf is gonna put on the show that they want to put on, and when that show is no longer profitable, then they will change. The attitude era was just so profitable for them, that at some point something had to give. They couldn't stay at the same level they were at forever. I think they are still putting on really good PPVs, and that RAW is still pretty good. As far as i'm concerned, the WWF is still doing a good job. And until they start re-visting the sucktitude of the early 90s i won't complain to hard.
The obvious answer is...........LONG TERM BOOKING! The reason why the WWF recovered after Montreal is for the most part, they had direction. McMahon knew where he wanted to be at Wrestlemania in December, not late February. If the writers would just book 3 months in advance it would make things that much more smoother and cohesive. The way they're booking the NWO right now gives me hope that the writers have an idea of where they want to be at Summerslam.
Speaking of the WCW ekedolphin, does anyone really know the main reasons why it changed so much in its last year/months? Why did Bischoff suddenly make it so stale? I thought the Scott Steiner as a monster champion angle was good but then everything seemed to go downhill from there. Women stopped coming out and everything in general seemed to get more boring. As a casual fan I was left wondering why the changes were taking place. Can someone tell me what was going on behind the scenes to make all that happen?
"Jack you are a scientist! Do you not think there are things in this universe which you do not understand and yet which are true?" -Abraham VanHelsing
The last couple of years of WCW I quit watching and only looked at recaps on DDT Digest, which was ran by WCW fans. I figured if WCW fans hated what was going on, there was no way I would watch it.
I didn't have cable during the early 90s, so I don't know all the ins and outs of WWF programming during that time. I only saw WWF Superstars or whatever the syndicated show was. I think their main events tended to be a little more exciting.
I agree that the main progrm with programming is too many McMahons. I'm not one of these guys who expects twenty minute matches, but I'd like to see more done with the wrestlers. About the only McMahon I'm interested in seeing on TV is Vince, and that's just because Flair is bringing the best out of him right now.
I think a big problem is too much talent. They have so many people now that there's always going to be someone who is underutilized. What I really think would help the WWF is competition from another promotion.
"I'm not on some big ego rush. I'm not after the bright lights and the little women."--Stan Hansen.
"Speaking of which, and if you believe Scott Keith's "sources," it was Steve Austin who was supposed to win the Final Four match. He injured his leg mid-match, and they decided on the fly to give Bret Hart the win.