First, I do respect that it put wrestling to an all time high on popularity, but we saw no WRESTLING. All we saw were a bunch of idiots acting like morons(dx,stone cold,mankind,etc.) All the matches were horrible and all the memories everybody has dont include matches.The greatest era in wrestling is happeneing right now (2000-2007). Look at all the great fueds we've seen:
Kurt angle vs Chris benoit(greatest fued of all time)
Chris jericho vs The rock
Kurt angle vs eddie guerrero
chris benoit vs eddie guerrero
JBL vs eddie guerrero
Shawn micheals vs Kurt angle
Edge vs Eddie Guerrero
Edge vs Kurt angle
These matches or fueds would have never happened in the attitude era because they involved WRESTLING
2007-12-22 08:43:00 · 14 answers · asked by BOB 6 in Sports ➔ Wrestling
the attitude era was better.
feuds in attitude era
stone cold/vince
rock/stone cold
stone cold/hhh
hhh/rock
taker/kane
corporation/ministry
hardys/edge&christian/dudleys
rock and sock/new age outlaws
kurt angle/rock
angle/hhh
y2j/hhh
and many more
the storylines and action were better also
2007-12-22 08:49:16 · answer #1 · answered by Hey Yo Chico 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Buddy all those rivalries would have never happened if it wasnt for the Attitude Era and anyone can match your rivalries for better ones like this:
Shane v. Vince
Monday Night Wars
Stone Cold v. The Rock
Undertaker v. Vince
The Dudley Bros. v. The Hardys v. Edge & Christian
Chris Jericho v. Triple HHH
The Rock v. Triple H
Kurt Angle v. Triple H
The Rock v. Mankind
Triple H v. Shawn Miachels
N.W.O. v. The Rock
N.W.O. v. Stone Cold
Hulk Hogan v. Undertaker
But I have to say the New Era did have some good Rivalries but no where as good as Attitude Era:
John Cena v. Edge (like 1 of the only good 1's)
Undertaker V. Randy Orton
Batista v. Triple H
Randy Orton v. Evoulution
Rob Van Dam v. John Cena
Edge v. Matt Hardy
Randy Orton v. Any Legend Lol
Dx v. Vince
and some other ones you posted up there
Overall Attitude Era wins
2007-12-22 17:15:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That is hands down the most ignorant-of-wrestling question I have ever seen asked in this section.
Saying the modern Era is the greatest in wrestling history is like saying a box of zesta's is better than a filet mignion.
Anyone who thinks that modern wrestling is better than the attitude era or wrestling in the 1980's for that matter is IMO a grade A doofus
2007-12-22 18:02:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
ok you gave an jbl a good feud, no-one likes him then no one likes him now. the matches were amazing, and 2000 was attitude era. people tend to htink that it was concluded in mania 17, one of the best of all time. for em i liked it cos the mid card was just as good as the ME
better storylines, my fav was SCSA gettin run over, also theypushed the people that were good, such as hhh and the rock, how have sort of transformed into cena and batista.
i just think tht in ppvs u dnt get your moneys worth anymore. i mean, when cena and batista were champs, they were in every ME for about a year, and you had khali in 6 title matches in 7 ppvs. if u think thats beta then 1998 (yes 1999 wasnt very good) then you dnt what wrestling is. a good example is too compare 1998 to 2007 survior series. watch them both, the HIAC was crap this year, the fact that they dnt go outside it now us stupid, so nows it more a cage match. and the main event was great.
its all very well me saying this, i just say watch it. i mean the feud between rock and hhh which then moved to angle and rock which then moved to hhh austin and then moved to austin rock was just the attitude eras final moments, and it was the best time for wrestling in my view. rip 2000 - mania 17. i didnt like y2j rock feud, i thought they had crap matches together, and a lot of your great feuds seem to be of people who have left. edge angle feud, i dnt even remember that....
2007-12-22 18:01:27 · answer #4 · answered by ajkennedy TRP 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree to an extent.
People tend to overrate the Attitude Era, and there were some good things about it:
-The mid-card was GREAT
-Titles meant a lot until The Hardcore Title came about
-Matches that did happen meant something
-It appealed to all types of fans
However, you are not alone. The Attitude Era was full of controversy and a lot of extreme storylines. There were some good feuds there as well (Rock/Stone Cold, HHH/everyone), but it is definitely an overrated era.
**I agree, Darth. This era is not the greatest.
2007-12-22 17:04:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS. EXCEPT THE THING ABOUT NOW IS THE GREATEST ERA CAUSE I THINK THE 80S WAS BETTER. EVEN NOW ISNT AS BAD AS EVERYONE SAYS THOUGH AND THE ATTITUDE ERA WAS MORE ABOUT STORYLINES THAN ACTUAL WRESTLING. ALSO 1999 KILLED THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WORLD TITLE WITH 12 TITLE CHANGES AND THE HARDCORE BELT IS A WHOLE OTHER ARGUEMENT.
2007-12-22 19:07:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the attitude era was the best era of wrestling ever if don't like the attitude era you don't like wrestling
2007-12-22 17:53:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uhhhh... Yeah you are.
So what if it was more about the entertainment than the wrestling? I honestly don't see a problem with that. I think while there should be wrestling involved (which there was) it should still be more about entertainment (which it was).
2007-12-22 17:04:13 · answer #8 · answered by Ava Andree. 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Book of wrestling would give a perfect answer
2007-12-22 16:59:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
i agree with heyochico
2007-12-22 17:22:39 · answer #10 · answered by Christmas Man 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋