|
|
Post by charliebucketsgranpa on Jan 23, 2014 22:07:55 GMT -5
www.ewrestlingnews.com/editorials/24734/was-ruthtless-agression-better-than-atittudeIf you guys haven't noticed, I am in a great writing mood today. The Attitude Era is long regarded as not only the most entertaining era in the history of WWE, but in the history of "sports entertainment" itself. But at the same time, the Attitude Era did not last forever, as a new breed of superstars came in to pick up the slack and continue to give it their all. But was John Cena's claim to Kurt Angle better than Attitude? Ruthless Aggression? Here's its case. For me, the Attitude Era was on the shoulders of only a few select men. If you ask me, I only see a handful of names at the top of my head when it comes to leaders on a consistent basis. These names would be The Rock, Steve Austin, Triple H and the Undertaker. WWE completely revolved around those four men in my opinion. I think there was a lack of consistent main-eventers who can be counted on to carry the company. Now the Atttiude Era is by all means a great era in WWE and I enjoyed watching all of the debauchery that took place during the time. However, I can't help but shake the feeling that the Ruthless Aggression had something more to it that could have given it that edge over the afromentioned Attitude Era. Let me explain. Remember those four names I mentioned? I literally mean that those four guys were the ones that mattered the most. The Ruthless Aggression had much more flexibility in their roster, not to imply that the roster wasn't deep already in the Attitude Era. It's safe to say that the Ruthless Aggression period ended in 2008, because that's the first time we saw the dreaded PG sign on the top left corner on our TV screen. In terms of main eventing PPV's WWE had a plethora of guys they can go to. I'm talking John Cena, Randy Orton, Chris Jericho, Edge, Undertaker, Rey Mysterio, Brock Lesnar, Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrerro (R.I.P), Brock Lesnar, Batista, JBL, Booker T/King Booker, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Jeff Hardy and Goldberg. With this the mid-card was still deep and had entertaining matches on a consistent basis. And the WOMEN"S DIVISION! This so called Divas division is put to shame by the likes of Sable, Lita, Trish Stratus and even Molly Holly! It is a tough call to say that any era in WWE was better than Attitude but I think that the Ruthless Aggression Era has a case for being the dominant era in WWE. Not only introducing the new age like they did at WrestleMania 21 with Cena and Batista holding their first world titles, but introducing us to entertainment in a broader form. this isn't a knock on the Attitude Era and I wouldn't dare question its greatness. But think there is a decent case for the Ruthless Aggression Era to be remembered as being better than the Attitude Era. What do you guys think? My answer, Of course it was better. Just wanted to post this to see if it could create some discussion. Note: I didn't write this
|
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 23, 2014 22:12:51 GMT -5
Um, Charlie, the Attitude era was terrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 23, 2014 22:14:05 GMT -5
In brief, yes, Ruthless Aggression was better, despite Angle and Lesnar 8)
You've got a few factual errors though. The AE actually involved a pretty large stable of talent. The fact that there were storylines at every level of the card is part of what made it successful. Even if you just want to talk Main Events... Big Show was unquestionably a factor, as was Mick Foley. Some might even argue that Foley was more important to the AE Main Event scene than the Undertaker.
|
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 23, 2014 22:14:31 GMT -5
In brief, yes, Ruthless Aggression was better, despite Angle and Lesnar 8) You've got a few factual errors though. The AE actually involved a pretty large stable of talent. The fact that there were storylines at every level of the card is part of what made it successful. Even if you just want to talk Main Events... Big Show was unquestionably a factor, as was Mick Foley. Some might even argue that Foley was more important to the AE Main Event scene than the Undertaker. Charlie didn't write it. |
|
|
|
Post by charliebucketsgranpa on Jan 23, 2014 22:15:32 GMT -5
Well, I didn't write it. I just found it an interesting read and agreed with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 23, 2014 22:16:49 GMT -5
Well, I didn't write it. I just found it an interesting read and agreed with it. I know you didn't write it. I could tell from the very first sentence. Anyhow I said that because I was curious as to why you posted this mess of crap. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 23, 2014 22:17:05 GMT -5
Oh, right, it came from the wrestling "press." No wonder it's highly factually inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebucketsgranpa on Jan 23, 2014 22:19:49 GMT -5
meh, I don't know, I was bored. Anyway, it seemed somewhat controversial on the site. Most of the comments are from blatent idiots.
|
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 23, 2014 22:22:38 GMT -5
meh, I don't know, I was bored. Anyway, it seemed somewhat controversial on the site. Most of the comments are from blatent idiots. The original post was from an idiot, so that shouldn't be much of a shocker. Also just judging by how the original poster is so high on the attitude era's "greatness" I'm guessing the majority of people over there are fans of the attitude era, and therefore completely irrelevant. Am I correct in this assumption? |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 23, 2014 22:22:41 GMT -5
meh, I don't know, I was bored. Anyway, it seemed somewhat controversial on the site. Most of the comments are from blatent idiots. Most wrestling fans are neandrathals who believe that Hulk Hogan, Ultimate Warrior, and Brock Lesnar are great wrestlers, and that "wrestling" necessarily involves soft core pornography, swearing, and enough blood for an entire series of Anne Rice novels. Of course saying that the AE wasn't the greatest thing of all time is controversial. |
|
|
|
Post by setokaiba on Jan 23, 2014 22:25:49 GMT -5
"Maybe Ruthess Agression was the best era in the WWE, but the Attitude Era was definitely the best era in Wrestling. It's easy for the WWE to have a great roster when there's no more WCW or other competition of some kind. Big picture!"  |
|
|
|
Post by charliebucketsgranpa on Jan 23, 2014 22:26:03 GMT -5
meh, I don't know, I was bored. Anyway, it seemed somewhat controversial on the site. Most of the comments are from blatent idiots. The original post was from an idiot, so that shouldn't be much of a shocker. Also just judging by how the original poster is so high on the attitude era's "greatness" I'm guessing the majority of people over there are fans of the attitude era, and therefore completely irrelevant. Am I correct in this assumption? yes meh, I don't know, I was bored. Anyway, it seemed somewhat controversial on the site. Most of the comments are from blatent idiots. Most wrestling fans are neandrathals who believe that Hulk Hogan, Ultimate Warrior, and Brock Lesnar are great wrestlers, and that "wrestling" necessarily involves soft core pornography, swearing, and enough blood for an entire series of Anne Rice novels. Unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 23, 2014 22:27:20 GMT -5
"Maybe Ruthess Agression was the best era in the WWE, but the Attitude Era was definitely the best era in Wrestling. It's easy for the WWE to have a great roster when there's no more WCW or other competition of some kind. Big picture!" It sort of makes sense, if you read around his poor use of words. I think he's suggesting that because of the WCW product, which was theoretically strong at that point, the Attitude Era occurred in a time that was better for wrestling overall... with which I would generally agree. |
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 23, 2014 22:28:25 GMT -5
The original post was from an idiot, so that shouldn't be much of a shocker. Also just judging by how the original poster is so high on the attitude era's "greatness" I'm guessing the majority of people over there are fans of the attitude era, and therefore completely irrelevant. Am I correct in this assumption? yes Internet communities are so predictable. |
|
|
|
Post by setokaiba on Jan 23, 2014 22:29:54 GMT -5
The problem with AE marks is they think wrestling means the divas are nothing more than sex objects(which is why the divas are in their current state of no one giving a shit), wrestling match must have blood(I can understand some matches having blood like HIAC,the Chamber, and Last Man Standing) and a great match is nothing more than a glorified brawl(I'm looking at you Austin)
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 23, 2014 22:32:02 GMT -5
The problem with AE marks is they think wrestling means the divas are nothing more than sex objects(which is why the divas are in their current state of no one giving a s***), wrestling match must have blood(I can understand some matches having blood like HIAC,the Chamber, and Last Man Standing) and a great match is nothing more than a glorified brawl(I'm looking at you Austin) All of that is true, but it's not the biggest problem. muta touched on the biggest issue with the AE in his post in another thread. The problem with the AE was that in every regard, it relied on constantly taking every element of the business to another level... violence, sexuality, "edginess"... they had to keep pushing it to new heights in order to maintain the ratings and buyrates. Eventually, something had to give. |
|
|
|
Post by charliebucketsgranpa on Jan 23, 2014 22:38:39 GMT -5
The problem with AE marks is they think wrestling means the divas are nothing more than sex objects(which is why the divas are in their current state of no one giving a s***), wrestling match must have blood(I can understand some matches having blood like HIAC,the Chamber, and Last Man Standing) and a great match is nothing more than a glorified brawl(I'm looking at you Austin) All of that is true, but it's not the biggest problem. muta touched on the biggest issue with the AE in his post in another thread. The problem with the AE was that in every regard, it relied on constantly taking every element of the business to another level... violence, sexuality, "edginess"... they had to keep pushing it to new heights in order to maintain the ratings and buyrates. Eventually, something had to give. agreed. |
|
muta75
Jobber
RONDA ROUSEY IS THE BEST FIGHTER ON THE PLANET
Posts: 3,606 
|
Post by muta75 on Jan 23, 2014 22:40:34 GMT -5
my thoughts on the AE are on here so no need to go there again.
Ruthless Aggression was better, but they did fumble the potential WCW invasion angle. since there was no competition how much did they really lose out?
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 23, 2014 22:44:40 GMT -5
The Invasion angle is one time when I think McMahon's personal ego got in the way of good business. I realize that most fans think that's every single day, but I strongly disagree, I think McMahon for the most part is all about business and not himself. In the Invasion though... well, first of all, they should never have tried it at all with the talent they had. Without WCW's big names, it was a wasted effort. But beyond that, it was SO disrespectful to the legacy of WCW that McMahon tossed Austin onto the WCW side, as if they couldn't possibly stand on their own without a WWE guy to save them.
|
|
muta75
Jobber
RONDA ROUSEY IS THE BEST FIGHTER ON THE PLANET
Posts: 3,606
|
Post by muta75 on Jan 23, 2014 22:49:05 GMT -5
The Invasion angle is one time when I think McMahon's personal ego got in the way of good business. I realize that most fans think that's every single day, but I strongly disagree, I think McMahon for the most part is all about business and not himself. In the Invasion though... well, first of all, they should never have tried it at all with the talent they had. Without WCW's big names, it was a wasted effort. But beyond that, it was SO disrespectful to the legacy of WCW that McMahon tossed Austin onto the WCW side, as if they couldn't possibly stand on their own without a WWE guy to save them. i saw the Austin thing as a dig to Eric. Austin's split from WCW has been gone over a lot. it lead to what many people (right or wrong) call the biggest boom in the business, which was lead by Austin (as many would say, right or wrong). i saw it as Vince's way of saying "If only you knew how to use him, pal."...i could be talking out of my ass..i'm known to do so.. |
|
