A question for intelligent pro wrestling fans, no mark fans please cuz it would beyond ur capacity?

Question

what era do u consider as the best era in the history of wwe personally i think Attitude Era was the best
and do u guys think has wwe's gone down in yrs cuz back in the day wwe use to be the best when u had all the big stars on the rosters and people use to anxiously wait for the ppv, now ppvs have became lame..and predictable...now wwe focuses on just one name cena
and do u think wwe should only have 1 roster or should they keep expanding their roster

Answer 1

Of course the Attitude Era was the best. The WWF had to be at the top of their game to beat out Ted Turner and WCW. It was a very good time in wrestling. I even wrote a column about it once. I liked how the Tag Titles were so prestigous that we would see people put body and limb on the line to get them. They would jump from ladders to tables, compete in tag team Buried Alive matches, and even create enormous stables to reach the gold.
Now we have tag teams put together with little to no thought.

As far as expanding the roster, of course. They should send some workers mainly from ECW back to OVW. Bring in GOOD OVW talent and try them out. That could also solve the problem of the depleted diva roster. Bring in talented workers from OVW instead of handing a $250,000 contract to some lady who happens to win some contest. Right now the roster is too big to fit on one show so I understand that much of it, but now the roster split is a joke. People are constantly moving from roster to roster with absolutely no explanation. And do you seriously expect Super Crazy to accomplish anything on RAW?!?!?! Last time the WWE did that with Tajiri he left!

Answer 2

Defenately the Attitude Era. Compition brings out the best in everyone. The storylines are definately getting boring. There's only so many original things they can do before they have to repackage ideas. I'm not a big Cena fan, but I think he's done ok. And the WWE doesn't just focus on one person. It might seem like that, but they don't. You're looking at it biasedly (not meaning to start anything here, just saying that most people who hate Cena wouldn't give him a chance). I don't like the one roster idea. You think the WWE is bad in terms of who they're pushing now, what do you think will happen if they could push the same talent on 3 shows? And then the WWE might also rush to fit everyone in every show, and end up like TNA.

Answer 3

The best era was definetely in the mid to late 90's. it was just raw and interesting. And yeah, the WWE has gone down in the past few years, and it'll continue to go down because the storylines are quite.. fake, overdone, and predictable. I don't know what's happened to it. And yeah the WWE should only have 1 roster. It would just be stupid to keep expanding it.
And yeahh, I agree with the Cena thing. i don't get why he still has that title.. I mean he's cheated for it as well so cena fans cannot say that he's earned it. But I respect him. I guess the writers think it'll bring ratings up to have a good face like him as the center of their show.

Answer 4

Your right the 1990s of the Attitude Era with the formation of DX... Yes if you look at the ratings from the past 10 years it has been getting lower...Exactly they use to sit there and watch it..now ppl know whats going to happen next because the match cards are leaking out online....also the storyline writers are getting worse and worse...the storylines you can tell are all fakeish...when before in 90s u had ppl believe that these things were real...that was hot...now ppl are like bleh whatever fck this show now....they jst dont also focus on cenas name they focus on Batista also but yeah a lil more of Cena, yes they should stick with one roster because it keep expanding and know its like every time u turn around theres a new wrestler....lets face it...its getting more whack and boring as the years progress

Answer 5

i think the best era was the 1990 to mid 90's, because that was when they had a lot of wrestlers with really cool names (not to mention a lot of big names) they didnt have as many ppv's, which made it even better. also back then they had a cena, he was called hogan. the writers see cena as the next big thing. and i see it too, he is strong and has a little bit of talk. the only thing cena doesnt have is a hater (like the rock and austin, austin and bret, hogan and the giant) today has gone down i agree, but the reason why vince has 3 rosters is because he has so many wrestlers to work with it would be too hard to keep them on one show. they would have to make one show 3-4 hours. i hope they cut it down to one some day and bring mr. kennedy what he deserves...hope that helps

Answer 6

Deffinately The Attitude Era!

Answer 7

The Attitude Era!

Answer 8

I FEEL THAT THE RUTHLESS AGGRESSION ERA WAS GOOD BUT THE ATTITUDE ERA WAS THE BEST DUE TO THE MONDAY NIGHT WARS. I AGREE THAT IT HAS GONE DOWN DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE WWE ONLY FOCUSES ON THE TOP DRAWING STARS SUCH AS TRIPLE H, HBK, JOHN CENA, BATISTA, LASHLEY AND SO ON, I FEEL THAT THE WWE SHOULD KEEP THE 3 ROSTERS BUT MAKE THEM EVEN WITH THE BIG STARS, MID CARDERS AND OPENERS.

Answer 9

the attitude era was the best so far, but i thank it has gone downhill because wwe has no real compation. TNA is just starting up, so if thay get better and start wooping on wwe wrestling will get better. oh cena sucks

Answer 10

wwe has gone down, and they chose to do that. wwe is only focusing on cena and batista. wwe is trying to get the same results but with one person. and besides, what do they have to loose? until another wrestling company actually becomes a potential threat to wwe like wcw was, wwe is still going to operate this way for awhile.