racketboy.com

The problem with that roster is that it is through a nostalgic lens, and the fact that we both stopped following wrestlers. The current roster might be just as praised now, we just are unaware about it because we're not in the scene.

The Attitude era had the best theme songs and tie in games so is automatically the best.

Wrestling lost a lot of its appeal I think when UFC really took off. You then had a sport with similarly larger than life personalities, genuine danger and the heightened stakes real sports have when the result isn't fixed. Also good for gambling.

AEW getting CM Punk feels to me less like a coup and more like when an aging footballer/soccer player goes out to the MLS to end his career.

I guess it depends on whether you’re into theatrics and choreography or just watching people beat each other senseless. I don’t know that I can actually find much value in the latter.

Sload Soap wrote:The Attitude era had the best theme songs and tie in games

That's debatable. Other than No Mercy, the other WWF games around that era were fairly weak (Warzone and Attitude were god awful for example). Smackdown 1 and 2 were okay (great at the time, but not timeless in the way I feel No Mercy is), but that series really didn't become great until Here Comes The Pain which was way after the Attitude era. SvR 2006 and 2007 were really awesome too.

I rewatch Attitude Era PPVs quite often, but it's really a struggle to get through any pre-2000 PPV. They often made some really bizarre decisions prior to 2000, like giving fucking Billy Gunn of all people a major push out of no where in 1999 and putting him in a feud with the Rock.

I have a fondness for the early Smackdown games as those were the ones my brothers and I would slap each other around in. Warzone wasn't great I'll admit.

marurun wrote:I guess it depends on whether you’re into theatrics and choreography or just watching people beat each other senseless. I don’t know that I can actually find much value in the latter.

Where's your bloodlust man?

Sload Soap wrote:I have a fondness for the early Smackdown games as those were the ones my brothers and I would slap each other around in. Warzone wasn't great I'll admit.

Yeah, I can get that. I do too. My friends and I put in hours and hours into both Smackdown 1 and 2 back in the day. I remember when the second game came out, we all slept over a friend of mine's house and we pulled an all nighter playing through the season mode trying to unlock all the match types and wrestlers.

If you're into that fast paced arcade style though, they definitely perfected it on the fourth game, Shut Your Mouth in my opinion. There were so many match types, things to do and wrestlers to choose from, and the season mode was insane (I think it's also the longest one, with it lasting two years - yes I know 1 and 2's season technically lasts forever, but they're just randomly generated, repeated stories after a while).

Here Comes the Pain is my personal favourite and most people agree, but that slowed things down a bit and became a touch more of simulation style, playing like a mixture between Smackdown and No Mercy.

Sload Soap wrote:The Attitude era had the best theme songs and tie in games so is automatically the best.

Wrestling lost a lot of its appeal I think when UFC really took off. You then had a sport with similarly larger than life personalities, genuine danger and the heightened stakes real sports have when the result isn't fixed. Also good for gambling.

AEW getting CM Punk feels to me less like a coup and more like when an aging footballer/soccer player goes out to the MLS to end his career.

There are people at Fox angry that WWE couldn't sign him. Punk has value. And again, numbers don't lie. AEW got a huge ratings boost from both him and Daniel Bryan. They actually beat WWE's Monday Night Raw in every demographic last week for the first time EVER.

Also, I actually read an article on a wrestling website calling All Out the best wrestling PPV ever and Punk certainly was a big part of that. Now, granted, best ever might be a bit of an exaggeration, but it speaks volumes that this pay per view has entered the conversation for a lot of people

And on the topic of video games, I personally feel that no video game has every truly captured what makes wrestling work, and I've played all of the popular ones from the N64 ones, to the Fire Pro Wrestling series, to the Yukes Smackdown games. I actually would rather play something that doesn't try to accurately mimic how wrestling works (because no video game can) and instead just does something silly and over the top with it like WWF Wrestlemania: The Arcade Game did

RCBH928 wrote:
As for pro-wrestling today I see it the same as it always was-rinse and repeat. I can not recall how many times I have seen this scenario , I am tired of it.

You're cherry picking an example, and a silly one as what you showed is something that is so fundamental that you can't NOT do it. Face calls out heel, face gets beat down by heel's friends, than other faces come out to help him. I mean, that's like saying you're tired of seeing a hero get beaten by a villain in a movie and then triumph over him later. That's basic story telling. Tropes are tropes because they work and are time tested

Also, you say wrestling is the same thing over and over again, yet have you tried New Japan Pro Wrestling? Have you ever watched Lucha Underground? Heck, even some of the stuff Broken Matt Hardy did...or the era of "cinematic wrestling" that flourished during the covid pandemic is very different from typical pro wrestling. I'll even give WWE some credit with the Bray Wyatt/Fiend stuff or R Truth/Drake Maverick winning the 24/7 title multiples times over a series of very funny youtube and TV skits. To not try watching any of that stuff is like when a video game reviewer says a game is too easy, but never played it on hard mode or tried getting any of its trophies or achievements. It's too easy because he MADE it too easy. And you can't ignore so much of what's out there in pro wrestling then say that it's always the same.

PretentiousHipster wrote:The problem with that roster is that it is through a nostalgic lens, and the fact that we both stopped following wrestlers. The current roster might be just as praised now, we just are unaware about it because we're not in the scene.

I actually watch some wrestling and I just do not see that they have the same star power, a lot of boring mumbo jumbo (WWE). Some that I would say still have the same star power is John Cena but this guy is nearing 20 years in wrestling. The others are Brock Lesnar, Aj Styles, Randy Orton but all these guys are old dudes debuting in attitude era or near attitude era. I might accept Roman Reigns as a mid-tier wrestler level from the attitude era.

The current WWE champion is Big E, seriously?!

marurun wrote:I guess it depends on whether you’re into theatrics and choreography or just watching people beat each other senseless. I don’t know that I can actually find much value in the latter.

There is an art in wrestling that I think rarely exists anymore when I watch older videos. In the latter, you can watch a match between two guys you never heard of but the choreography and the storytelling via in ring action can be quite fun and attention capturing. Here is an example albeit this one is a bit extreme (EC-DUB! EC-DUB! EC-DUB!)

Now its more of a tv drama and what I like to call a "wrestling dance" more than wrestling action.

Sload Soap wrote:The Attitude era had the best theme songs and tie in games so is automatically the best.

Wrestling lost a lot of its appeal I think when UFC really took off. You then had a sport with similarly larger than life personalities, genuine danger and the heightened stakes real sports have when the result isn't fixed. Also good for gambling.

AEW getting CM Punk feels to me less like a coup and more like when an aging footballer/soccer player goes out to the MLS to end his career.

*Checks location
*UK
*Location checks out!

our American brethren probably don't know what you are talking about

You are correct but CM Punk is 42 in the wrestling world that makes him in his prime. The Undertaker is 56 and just few years back he was a main attraction. None the less, I do not think CM Punk is the Hogan of this era . A lot of the fuss about him his because its a "come back" story and a big name from WWE debuting in the underdog organization. Remember AEW is less than 3 years old so to see a star name from WWE showing up there is a big thing that people have not witnessed since the closure of WCW back in 2001. TNA had some but near all of them were wrestlers that WWE chew and spat out after they were done with them nothing prime IIRC