horrorfan_1986

Jake's feud with Randy Savage in 1991/1992 is hands down one of my favorite feuds of all time. Everything about it was just fantastic. It was also during this period that Jake had some of his best promos. I especially loved his Tuesday in Texas second promo where he admits he got off by hitting Miss Elizabeth. Finding a copy of Supertape 1992 (which contains a few matches then the entire Tuesday in Texas PPV) is worth the price for the Roberts/Savage match and promos.

The whole Hart Foundation vs America was one of the best feuds of the 90's. While the Hart Foundation was made up of The Harts, Neidhart, Davey Boy Smith and Brian Pillman, the Americans were a revolving group. But I especially loved when Austin, Michaels, L.O.D. and Goldust were involved. There was a lot of Attitude Era elements, but unlike the Attitude Era, the matches were just as good as the hype. 1997 was such a fun time to be a wrestling fan.

__________________

Tommy Platinum

In what ways could it be said that wrestling is better today than it was in the 80s-mid 90s? I am tired of hearing that wrestling is worse now than it used to be. I personally think there are many positives of wrestling today, and it has improved over time, at least in certain aspects. Thoughts?

I left off the attitude era because I know you don't really like that anyway
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

__________________

horrorfan_1986

While I think it's quite obvious I prefer previous eras to today's wrestling, there are several things that is better these days.

Video Releases - I could hate every single thing the WWE does for the past few years, but their home video releases have been increasingly awesome. Back in the day, most videos were just a hour long. Most matches were either short or clipped. As time went on they slowly started putting more effort into their videos. These days, the norm is to have a one hour documentary, 5-8 matches and a lot of promos/interviews all on 2 discs equaling 6-8 hours.

Nationwide Exposure - There was once a time where if you moved across the country or just a few states over, you were forced into watching a different company. But with the rise of cable television, you're able to watch one company anywhere in America and Canada (I assume Europe and other places, but without living there my I'm not sure). That's quite a little perk to have.

Ease of Watching - No longer are you as a fan forced into tape trading or other means to watch other companies or countries. Thanks to the internet, I'm able to keep up with Japanese wrestling and any obscure indy promotion. This also helps the companies since as fans we know more wrestlers around the world. Wrestlers are able to enter a company already over (EX/ CM Punk in 2006).

Future Knowledge - This ties into the previous three. One of the problems that previous decades have is that it's hard to really know what happened each year. Even if you owned every PPV, you will only have an idea what happened for very brief periods of time that year. Look at 1986 for example. How much do fans really know what happened for the year? Did you know that Roddy Piper turned face that year? How about the long running Hulk Hogan vs Paul Orndorff feud? Ever heard of the Machines? Sadly, with Wrestlemania 2 being the only major event that is easily remembered, 1986 is just one of the years that is largely unknown. Although I'm not a huge fan of having so many PPV's each year, having 12+ gives future fans an easy and informative review of the year. Tie in with the video releases, a fan can start watching in 2010 and easily know exactly what happened in 2007.

__________________

KenTheKiller

When should CM Punk (if ever) get a WHC/WWE title reign?

__________________

Tommy Platinum

Valid points, but that insinuates that you don't believe there are any positives of the current product when compared to the product of previous eras, outside of technological advances and more PPVs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

__________________

horrorfan_1986

Ha, yeah I noticed that after it was posted.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Here's a couple more:

Variety - Pretty much every major company in the US displays a wide variety of styles every event. Technical, women, spotfests, high flying, brawls, death matches, squashes, and comedy matches are able to be viewed easily. This helps broaden the audience show that anyone can find something interesting about the show.

PPV Lengths - Especially for Wrestlemania's, while there were classics, there were also an average of 9-12 matches. Having 3 hours to so many matches meant have your fair share of squash and short matches. These days, most PPV matches are normally just under 10 minutes at a minimal.
--

Ultimately, if it was easily for me to come up with a long list of things that today's wrestling does better than the past, then I would have no reason being such a fan of older wrestling. Past decades had more thought out feuds, wrestlers didn't get stale as quickly and wrestlers didn't depend on cheap spots to get the fans into a match. So unless I lie, this should be expected.

__________________

horrorfan_1986

I love Punk, but being the top guy on Smackdown or Raw when there's such wrestlers as Triple H, John Cena and The Undertaker around is a tough task to accomplish. Unfortunity, Punk really went in the wrong order in becoming a star. Had he been an IC or US champion then came to ECW to become their champion, it would be a lot easier to be seen as a legit main eventer (See Bobby Lashley).

For Punk to win the WHT or WWE Title and actually look like a real champion, I would wait another year. After Wrestlemania, send Punk over to Raw or SD. Keep him in a Kennedy/Kane low main event spot. Have Punk defeat every midcarder and put up close matches against main eventers. Around WM 25, Punk should be ready for the title.

__________________

neXus

horrorfan_1986

I would easily say Savage.

As over as Hogan was, he had a very basic gimmick. An All American ultimate face. It's a gimmick that a lot of wrestlers have had, but not one that promises success. Hogan's entertaining skills is what made him so popular, not the gimmick.

Randy Savage and all of his WWE gimmicks were all larger than life. The egotistical chicken shit jealous heel Macho Man (1985-1987) was able to get instant heat based on how he treated Miss Elizabeth. The Macho King (1989-1991) was a gimmick of a superiority complex. Having the crown, scepter and always cheating was another easy way to be hated. Face Macho Man (1987-1989 and 1991-1994) was Savage using his voice and his over the topness to just be so much fun.

No matter what gimmick he had, Savage always expressed how passionate he was in his eyes and voice. It was that passion that really drew in the fans.

__________________

neXus