The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[BHK1978]

My whole point was that they could concentrate higher on one thing at a time, then they can right now. With the "Jobber" in place as the opponant, who else are you going to be interested in?

 

Remember, these things I'm talking about were DURING the territorial times, and before the first Wrestlemania. When I say something like that last sentence, that's not me being patronizing, I'm just trying to set the mood.... The time's back then wasn't as focused on TV ratings and who put on the best show, but on the wrestler's themselves.

 

For example... You didn't see everyone going "Crocket" "Crocket" or "WWWF" "WWWF"! They chanted Names "SNUKA!" "SNUKA!". They might not know his opponant, but by god they come to see Snuka! That's part of my point about focus. You would see Mean Jean interview a star, and you would get a good idea if you liked that star or not. You didn't see him interview the jobber (Gold-Dust in the example above).

 

Even after re-reading both of these posts, I don't feel like I'm conveying the message I'm trying to convey. Go ahead and dismiss it if you must, but there is something I'm trying to say that I'm just for some reason unable to get accross.

 

I agree with you, now it is more about being loyal to promotions. However, back then it was about the wrestler's. To me the constant squash matches made the Superstars look all that much better.

 

For me the Attitude era was about me exactly not enjoying the product (Although I felt it was a rip off of ECW and to a lesser extent WCW.). I was gald to see the Doink the Clow type characters gone.

 

That being said I did not like a good portion of the Attitude Era's roster. Steve Austin yes but I was a fan of him going back to before it was cool to be a fan of his. The Rock, yes I thought he was great as well. However, some of the others on the roster at that time I just did not enjoy.

[djthefunkchris]

Actually, now that I think about it..they did it twice.

 

80s fans grew up and didn't really like the Attitude Era because it was radically different. And then those Attitude fans grew up and complain about the product now, because it's radically different.

 

So while it's true that people will tend to prefer what they grew up on, it's also not entirely their fault that the company they grew up watching decided to change what they were doing.

 

EDIT: But back to what I was saying..wrestling TV in the 80s was balls. No matter how old you are.

 

I think we just didn't like all the freakin' nasty stuff in it. I mean... yeah, that's probably it moreso then anything. I don't really like a bunch of nasty stuff. Didn't really like the digs at each other either... thought it was very unprofessional, not something I would do to an opponant at all. I also thought it was alot more sloppy and less thought out. Everything seemed to lack focus, and alot of stuff looked like they just decided to do something different at the last minute. It looked more like a reality TV show then any other point in history I think, and since I hate reality shows, probably that's a big minus for someone like me. They went from a family friendly product, to something I would be embarrassed to watch in front of my family, etc.

 

The thing is different strokes for different folks. Everyone else remember's the great things like "The Rock" or "Stone Cold", I remember things like sex scenes and clothing mishaps. I have never took away from the great characters that come out of that era... never. I just didn't like the era for all the OTHER things that come out of it.

 

Did I ever mention that I never liked HBK till like the last five years of his carreer? I honestly never liked Flair either.... Back in the day I hated him because I never felt he was believable in the roles they had him in... Felt that someone with the talent of Steamboat shouldn't have took five minutes to beat him in the ring. These things I hated back then (80s), so it's not like it's all sugar coated to me. I'm just as much above that as anyone else thinks they are with the attitude era. I just lived it, so I know looking at match's, watching DVD's of Wrestlemania number 1, and so on and so on, is not anything like it was when watching it live. Just as almost anyone will tell you going to a live show today is much better then watching it on TV.

 

We can have room for both, and agree that it's just different strokes for different folks (Another 80's thing).

 

As far as being balls... I have absolutely no idea what that means... I know what it means to have balls, and in that context it sounds like your saying something good. I have a feeling I"m wrong though.

[PeterHilton]

Can't we put on a "good" show here people care about the stars and not if they face other stars? WCW may have been killed by the NWO storyline but at it's height it did an entire NWO PPV where there was 1 match that had both sides with stars. A lot of the NWO matches were against "jobbers" even if they were sold as "legitamit" opponents.

 

If you read the results of that time (or the Death of WCW book) that PPV was a colossal failure and drew like a third of their normal PPV buy numbers.

[PeterHilton]

I agree with you, now it is more about being loyal to promotions. However, back then it was about the wrestler's. To me the constant squash matches made the Superstars look all that much better.

 

 

Baffling. Totally baffling. It's like listening to someone say they prefer black & white TV or dial-up modems.

 

As far as being balls... I have absolutely no idea what that means... I know what it means to have balls, and in that context it sounds like your saying something good. I have a feeling I"m wrong though.

 

It was terrible. I just don't see any way how a syndicated wekly show that featured one or two good interview segments and 6 matches where NOTHING happend could objectively be looked at as being entertaining.

 

If you ran WWF Superstars type shows today (nothing but squash matches,minimal angles, going weeks between appearances by your main eventers) fans would reject them totally.

[djthefunkchris]

No offense, chris, but the world has moved on from a time when TV ratings didn't matter and no one cared about putting on a good show. You might as well be talking about the Jurassic Era.

 

Anything before the first WM is almost completely irrelevant to wrestling today.

 

Same reason why I never want to hear people talk about people from before 1979 as 'the greatest wrestler ever'...it's not even the same thing.

 

I never said they didn't care about putting on a good show... and don't think for a minute they weren't competing with each other... especially in the NWA... Everyone wanted THIER star with the title, for example.

 

And to put off 100 years of wrestling that happened before wrestlemania is kind of crude in my book. I can't say I agree with you at all. It's only a different game now because of the ability to be seen by so many more people at the same time. The National networks, cable, etc. These have changed, but I find it very hard to say wrestling has changed all that much.

 

Whenever we talk about Territorries, I feel like alot of people think of them as "Old School" indie promotions or something..> These guys drew thousands of fans, not 30... These guys had big shows that would draw huge crowds, make incredible money (for the time), and even the jobbers' back then at least got a pay check... The money for wrestler's back then in comparison to guys trying to get "in" today, it's alot worse today. If anything, wrestling has de-volved, gotten incredibly worse for people not in one of the "BIG BOY" promotions. In the US, you either work for TNA or WWE, and outside of maybe a FEW other's... ROH is probalby the closest thing to a "Territory" type promotions we have, and they don't pull half as much to their events as say... Georgia Championship Wrestling did.

[dvdWarrior]

If you ran WWF Superstars type shows today (nothing but squash matches,minimal angles, going weeks between appearances by your main eventers) fans would reject them totally.

 

Seems to me today's fans are gonna reject... darn near anything anyway. No matter what happens, few fans ever seem happy with it.

 

Just not a fun environment anymore. It was fun to be a fan back in the 80s.

 

Granted, I was a kid in the 80s, but still.

[djthefunkchris]

Baffling. Totally baffling. It's like listening to someone say they prefer black & white TV or dial-up modems.

 

 

 

It was terrible. I just don't see any way how a syndicated wekly show that featured one or two good interview segments and 6 matches where NOTHING happend could objectively be looked at as being entertaining.

 

If you ran WWF Superstars type shows today (nothing but squash matches,minimal angles, going weeks between appearances by your main eventers) fans would reject them totally.

 

WWF was something most people hated, you do realise that so I don't know why you even bring them up? We weren't watching WWE/WWF till after they started taking over... had no other option. There were lots of shows, almost every day of the week I could watch wrestling, but GCW was the one I liked most at the time.

 

WWF was horrible, and people revolted when they took over GCW Championship wrestling, as we weren't down with that crap at the time.

 

If all your going to do is bring up old WWF, and not even go back to WWWF, then we aren't going to communicate very well, lol.. I have no other option but to agree with you if that's what we will be judging the whole era on.

[djthefunkchris]

Just for the record... WWF might have been the big WINNER, but realise this had alot more to do with cash flow, and all the pieces falling together, signing as much of the biggest draws at the time, etc... then it had to do with their product. IN my opinion, WWF (when Vince took over) was one of the WORST wrestling shows during the time. If I had a choice, I would have much rather almost any of the other shows.. outside of maybe Memphis, to have won the whole thing, then WWF.

 

Since doing that, I have become a fan of WWF/E, but before Wrestlemania, I hated their show. Please... Do not ever use them to compare what wrestling was like in the 80's.

[PeterHilton]

And to put off 100 years of wrestling that happened before wrestlemania is kind of crude in my book. I can't say I agree with you at all. It's only a different game now because of the ability to be seen by so many more people at the same time. The National networks, cable, etc. These have changed, but I find it very hard to say wrestling has changed all that much.

 

Whenever we talk about Territorries, I feel like alot of people think of them as "Old School" indie promotions or something..> These guys drew thousands of fans, not 30... These guys had big shows that would draw huge crowds, make incredible money (for the time), and even the jobbers' back then at least got a pay check... The money for wrestler's back then in comparison to guys trying to get "in" today, it's alot worse today. If anything, wrestling has de-volved, gotten incredibly worse for people not in one of the "BIG BOY" promotions. In the US, you either work for TNA or WWE, and outside of maybe a FEW other's... ROH is probalby the closest thing to a "Territory" type promotions we have, and they don't pull half as much to their events as say... Georgia Championship Wrestling did.

 

Let's see...

 

I'm dismissing that era specifically BECAUSE the world has changes so much. The "The National networks, cable, etc" isn't some small thing.

 

You're talking about a 24 hour multimedia entertainment cycle where everyone on the planet can see any wrestler on the planet any time they want to in a few key strokes. You're talking about a wolrd where the biggest company on the planet is s publicly traded commodity whose performers can be interview by fans on-line and whose every quote is reported on instantly; where their private lives are not only known by fans...but talked about, intruded upon, and reported instantaneously.

 

During the territories, if a guy went cold, you shipped him to another state where he'd instantly become a hot draw. If a match drew a great response from a live crowd, you ran THE EXACT SAME MATCH every night for the next three weeks straight.

 

Wrestlers never broke kayfabe because it was EASY to never break kayfabe; just play to the fans who stuck around after the show and then get in your car and drive. No one interviewed. There was no such thing as a 'wrestling news cycle.' Your private life - the hookers, drugs, alcohol, violence, crime, steroids, whatever - was YOURS.

 

All of that MATTERS. it matters. More so than whether or not the guys on the indy scene are getting the same kind of check. The indy scene is struggling..and eventually that means that not enough young talent is being developed...but that's not really what I'm talking about:

 

I'm saying that the WORLD TODAY is so different that you can't compare what made a wrestler succesful back then to what makes a wrestler successful now.

 

There are lots of wrestlers who made it big during the territory days that never would've been able to make it today specifically because the media and exposure is so different.

[BHK1978]

Just for the record... WWF might have been the big WINNER, but realise this had alot more to do with cash flow, and all the pieces falling together, signing as much of the biggest draws at the time, etc... then it had to do with their product. IN my opinion, WWF (when Vince took over) was one of the WORST wrestling shows during the time. If I had a choice, I would have much rather almost any of the other shows.. outside of maybe Memphis, to have won the whole thing, then WWF.

 

Since doing that, I have become a fan of WWF/E, but before Wrestlemania, I hated their show. Please... Do not ever use them to compare what wrestling was like in the 80's.

 

To add to that location was very much a key as well. It helps when your main area has cities such as NYC, Boston, and Philadelphia in it.

[PeterHilton]

WWF was something most people hated, you do realise that so I don't know why you even bring them up? We weren't watching WWE/WWF till after they started taking over... had no other option. There were lots of shows, almost every day of the week I could watch wrestling, but GCW was the one I liked most at the time.

 

WWF was horrible, and people revolted when they took over GCW Championship wrestling, as we weren't down with that crap at the time.

 

If all your going to do is bring up old WWF, and not even go back to WWWF, then we aren't going to communicate very well, lol.. I have no other option but to agree with you if that's what we will be judging the whole era on.

 

I bring up WWF because that's what most people who had exposure to that era will remember. Not everyone say these regional TV shows that you mention.

 

But those weren't much better.

[PeterHilton]

Just for the record... WWF might have been the big WINNER, but realise this had alot more to do with cash flow, and all the pieces falling together, signing as much of the biggest draws at the time, etc... then it had to do with their product. IN my opinion, WWF (when Vince took over) was one of the WORST wrestling shows during the time. If I had a choice, I would have much rather almost any of the other shows.. outside of maybe Memphis, to have won the whole thing, then WWF.

 

Since doing that, I have become a fan of WWF/E, but before Wrestlemania, I hated their show. Please... Do not ever use them to compare what wrestling was like in the 80's.

 

I tend to agree...(80s WWF in-ring was generally pretty bad) ..but you can't NOT talk about them when they were the most successful promotion of the era. By far.

 

It's like saying "I know Microsoft was the most successful company of the home PC boom, but can we talk about that time w/o mentioning Windows?"

[djthefunkchris]

Sorry for the late reply's, but a friends car broke down, had to go help them out.

I tend to agree...(80s WWF in-ring was generally pretty bad) ..but you can't NOT talk about them when they were the most successful promotion of the era. By far.

 

It's like saying "I know Microsoft was the most successful company of the home PC boom, but can we talk about that time w/o mentioning Windows?"

 

That's not a fair way to look at it.... It's like saying OJ would have won if he was broke and had a court appointed lawyer, it's simply something we don't know..

 

We do know that WWE grabbed all the "most popular" wrestler's around, and put them on a supercard known as Wrestlemania. We do know that they spent alot of money hyping their product through things such as MTV. We do know that WWE/F had what seemed like a never ending stream of money to bassically buy off (some of these promotions they bought were not hurting, the money offered was just to good to pass up), or buy the talent of the other promotions all over the country.

 

People seem to think that it was their popularity, and not their money that did all this. It was the money, not the popularity. It was the money, and the best deals anyone could get. Alot like WCW did when trying to beat WWF, by giving bigger fatter pay checks, offering more stability, etc. It's just not as simple as saying since they were the most successfull, that they were also the most popular, the most durable yes... the most popular, not by a long shot.

 

They had the deepest pockets, and therefore was able to "bully" competition... not much different then a Mafia scenario to be honest. "What are you doing Vinnie, your gonna end up in a lake!" This was actually a possibility, but he went through with it anyways, and everyone knows his dad was against it.

 

On a smaller scale... Let's say you own a pizza shop in town. There are 20 other pizza shops in town, and you offer them all a fair amount to buy them out. They might have better pizza, but that's not the point, your going for something different here. The ones' that don't let you buy them, you decide your going to buy all the ingrediants that make their pizza so good. Now, they don't have a choice, they are cut off from the great pizza they once had, and now their pizza is definately not as "good" as yours, so your going to win that war on a different level... but most finally cave in and take the money (by this time they are really smarter for it, because you bassically crushed their bussiness).

 

However, even though you have all the best ingrediants, it doesn't mean you can put the right portions together to come up with the best pizza, it just means that since no one else has these ingrediants, they can't compete with your flavor anymore. You hold an EVENT that has all the best PIZZA Ingrediants that you can find, and bring in a ton of people to eat your pizza, as this is the first time in history that all the pizza is available at one place.

 

Now, you tell me... Does this make your pizza shop the best PIZZA ever? Or does it mean you just did what it took by all means necessary to make your's the best pizza available?

 

Like I said, to dismiss everything before Wrestlemania, and even to count things leading up to wrestlemania in that time period, is just the wrong way to base your opinion on that era of Wrestling. These companies got worse because of their being bullied and losing talent. YOu have to look at them before this happened, not afterward.

 

Why would you take the worse times of one era to compare to the best times of another era?

[PeterHilton]

Why would you take the worse times of one era to compare to the best times of another era?

 

I already explained this: I'm not talking about their quality at the time, I'm talking about the industry and the world as a whole.

 

I just can't see some of the more successful territory workers of the day - Harley Race, Junkyard Dog, Dusty Rhodes, Jerry Lawler, Bill Watts, the Funks, etc - becoming big superstars at any era except the territory days.

 

Successful? Maybe. Probably. But the same level of success? No.

 

It'd be like saying old school rap groups could break out and hit it big today. Things are just too different. That's why i don't make those comparisons.

 

If you're comparing territory era promotions to promotions post WM, the industry and the world as a whole is just too different to make a fair comparison.

[djthefunkchris]

I already explained this: I'm not talking about their quality at the time, I'm talking about the industry and the world as a whole.

 

I just can't see some of the more successful territory workers of the day - Harley Race, Junkyard Dog, Dusty Rhodes, Jerry Lawler, Bill Watts, the Funks, etc - becoming big superstars at any era except the territory days.

 

Successful? Maybe. Probably. But the same level of success? No.

 

It'd be like saying old school rap groups could break out and hit it big today. Things are just too different. That's why i don't make those comparisons.

 

If you're comparing territory era promotions to promotions post WM, the industry and the world as a whole is just too different to make a fair comparison.

 

Ok... I think I'm getting what your saying now. What your saying is exactly the reason I liked things better back then though...

 

You can't have as many today, because there are no where for them to be seen as hugely as their was back then. For example, almost all the territories had their own TV shows, on TV, etc. I already talked about how they drew, etc. This was better to me because you had your Popular guys (like the one's you mentioned), and you had your SUPER over the top Popular guys, guys like Steamboat, Hogan, Snuka, Piper, Orndorf, Andre, etc. This isn't possible today because you bassically have two outlets (in the US) which is WWE and TNA... and to a much lesser extent, ROH (which in my opinion is closest, although only about halfway their).

 

That's my whole point though, is that you were able to focus on alot more people at a much greater depth then what's possible now... And the reason that you see so much of the "main" roster all the time, instead of new stars, etc.

 

Anyways, I am enjoying this conversation as it seems to maybe bridging a gap or something that has been missing (confusion) when people like me say we loved the golden years as opposed to the attitude era, etc.

[dvdWarrior]

Thing is, I SHOULD be very pro-Attitude Era, I would think. I was a teenager when it was happening, and was VERY much into wrestling at the time. I can only assume that my being "baptized" in wrestling pretty much since birth, (I was born into a family full of wrestling fans, can't remember ever not watching), is why I so much prefer the wrestling style of the 80s.

 

While I'm sure that my nostalgic, rose-colored glasses view of the era affected my thoughts and opinions on it, could that really be the only thing?

 

Since I've started watching WWE Classics On Demand, I've noticed that, just from my recent viewings: I seem to enjoy the Nitros more than the Raws in both '96 and '98; the WWE Old School show are possibly my favorite thing on there, (house shows that were originally broadcast on the MSG network); and there's a slight chance that the original ECW was just a teeny bit overrated.

 

But I do seem to like the old WWF Prime Time shows a lot, and the old pay-per-views from the era. Bobby Heenan and Gorilla Monsoon could make 'a show full of squashes' at least reasonably entertaining.

 

Stennick's comment on the NWA TV he saw were right, but, if I remember correctly, NWA's World Championship Wrestling was much more of a 'B' Show, and episodes from World Wide Wrestling from around that time would have probably been much better.

 

Think I started to ramble there for a bit.

[Self]

Only skimmed a bunch of this.

 

I love squash match. Love them. One guy beating the hell out of his opponent in a one-sided ass whoopin' floats my boat. I was a huge Koslov mark back when he was headbuttin' dudes to death. I think the problem with squash matches, at least in WWE, is that recently they've only been used to showcase big, clumsy, green workers who can't handle 'real' matches. The audience has been conditioned to not care, and even chant "you can't wrestle" because they see the matches as an angle more than a real piece of quality wrestling entertainment.

 

Put a guy like Daniel Bryan in a squash match, and I think it would be awesome. John Morrison kicking and flipping a dude to death in 5 minutes would totally float my boat. Squash matches can be really good fun to watch. Not to fill a show, but I see no problem with trying 1 or 2 per show.

 

Each show was different back then. One show Hogan might be on, another the Sheik, etc. There was alway's a different focus each week, not the same focus every week like there is now. That's why the shows are 2 hours instead of 1 now, I guess... Too many people to focus on.

 

I love this. Shows like Lost have always thrilled me with their focus. They take one character, and really hone in on a specific aspect or flaw of his personality. I'd love to see the same thing tried with a wrestling show in the modern age.

 

Am I the only one who like Dukes? The damn Broken Lizard Super Trooper scene was effin HIGH larious!

 

I actually like it too. Got a pre-Psych James Roday in it. That's good stuff.

 

For example... You didn't see everyone going "Crocket" "Crocket" or "WWWF" "WWWF"! They chanted Names "SNUKA!" "SNUKA!".

 

This drives me nuts nowadays. I HATE it when the crowd chants the name of the promotion. It's a "thanks for getting these guys to put on a good show" chant, as opposed to a "Oh my God that dude is totally awesome" chant. I got into some chanting at the Dragon Gate shows I went to. I went wild for BxB Hulk. I screamed for PAC. I couldn't bring myself to join in with the 'Dra-Gon-Gate!" stuff. Couldn't do it. And I love Dragon Gate. I just want to love the characters more.

[Wrestling Century]

and there's a slight chance that the original ECW was just a teeny bit overrated.

 

IMO, yes, it was overrated, but it sure was fun to watch!

[djthefunkchris]

In alot of ways I think we view the TEW game as a way of actually doing bussiness, and if someone was "hot" back then, we think oh.. they have to be on every show or they will get mad. That's not how it went though, it could mean you only seen your favorite once a month back then, but if you watched, you learned more about other's.

 

That's what is missing in todays wrestling, is that there is just too much going on between everyone. You have the ladies, it's not the focus though, because then you have the tag teams, but that's not the focus, because now you have the US title, and then that's not the focus, but we "review" all of this weekly (no matter what your watching), now we get to the focus, It's NEXUS, but... that's not really the focus because we are focusing on Cena not Nexus. That's not the focus either... it's all the focus, too much going on.

 

Attention span is blamed for this, attitude era is blamed for this, but I just blame forgetfullness and in a way competition. Too many worried about specific ratings and how to get them better all the time, rather then how to put off stuff that people will be more and more interested in. How you ever going to get people interested in the US title if they only get 15 minutes to be the focus of the show? It's just silly to me the way things are done now-a-days, but I have to admit I still watch it, and at times love it.

 

I want to see Santino more then anyone else, in particular... but they won't never have a Santino show... too much other things to make happen.

 

What is up with today anyways... I just got back from giving a little support for my wife and co-worker who just had a small fender bender... I'm thinking I'm cursed today, lol.

[Antithesis]

chris, your post is incredibly patronizing. I'm not stupid.

 

I'm 34. I was old enough in the 80s to have watched the WWF regularly. I know what the purpose of jobber matches are..it doesn't make them good or any better that they "served a purpose."

 

Fans don't want to watch that crap, which is exactly why WCW caught fire when they went AWAY from that format.

 

Don't try to sell me on a show full of jobber matches. I'm not buying.

 

As for your "different focus" argument: I don't know what you mean other than they slowed down the pace of storytelling. Well guess what? That's exactly what the WWE is doing now, which is why we get to see feuds that last 3-4 PPVs before they are settled.

 

If anything, the storytelling of the current product is closer to the 80s than ever before..which is why it's turned off a lot of the younger fans who grew up on the Attitude Era.

 

The answer is simple, and if you are 34 you are old enough to remember it.

 

Kayfabe.

 

Sure, even with god awful jobber matches, as little kid, I knew it was fake, but since it had the pretext of being legitimate, I could suspend my disbelief enough to give a damn.

 

The very moment wrestling shows had a magic camera backstage that the wrestlers had to pretend they couldn't see, but followed them around and would broadcast their evil plans to sneak attack the baby face not only to the audience, but everyone in the arena and even their target who could hear the audio, yet always managed to fall for it. I was simply too insulted to care any more.

[djthefunkchris]

The answer is simple, and if you are 34 you are old enough to remember it.

 

Kayfabe.

Sure, even with god awful jobber matches, as little kid, I knew it was fake, but since it had the pretext of being legitimate, I could suspend my disbelief enough to give a damn.

The very moment wrestling shows had a magic camera backstage that the wrestlers had to pretend they couldn't see, but followed them around and would broadcast their evil plans to sneak attack the baby face not only to the audience, but everyone in the arena and even their target who could hear the audio, yet always managed to fall for it. I was simply too insulted to care any more.

 

Yes, this.

 

See, even though I might have thought "X" was slow and easy to out maneuver, there was that (Kafabe?) belief that as soon as they got their hands on you, it was all over. "Oh no, if he locks in the camel clutch, he's going to win it!"

 

They were "Super" heroes and villains. Some you liked, some you didn't think were much more then sidekicks, but they were all stronger then the average man, or at least that's how they were put over. Jobber match was nothing more then an "ordinary" guy trying to do something. "I'll get you Piper, I'm showing the world your an over-rated twit!" Then in less then two minutes, Piper is throwing him all over the ring saying "I'm a twit am I? What am I? Say it again!" and the ref keeps having to hold him back, till finally the pinfall is made in an almost sympathetic move, so as not to harm this would be "do gooder".

 

That's what made WWF so horrible back then though, is that they started getting away from that more and more, and started throwing in more and more realistic emotions and backstage skits and such. No one would have believed that was the way of the future back then, but no one really realised how much clout the WWF had either.

 

I can look back at the history of Wrestling and see how it all come to the point it is now pretty easily though.. But at that time I didn't have this information in front of me. You had the turn of the century (1900) with the Gold Dust trio being formed by three great minds "Ed 'The Strangler' Lewis (very popular wrestler), Billy Sandow (great manager and promoter), and Toots Mondt (visionary of what wrestling could be). Sandow and Mondt have a difference in opinion (physical traits in wrestler's, etc.), Mondt teams with Roderick "Jess" McMahon and forms Capital Wrestling, Vincent J McMahon Later replaces his father, WWWF joins the NWA in the early 50's, etc. This is the same company today, although having changed names, it's still the same company since probably the late 20's or early 30's. Jess was a boxing promoter, and Toot's knew if he could team up with him, they would be able to controll the New York regional area. The company was not a bad company till Vince Jr. took over.

 

Then it started going the way it is now, and most people hated it back then... but when you don't have a choice, and don't realise whats' going on and why the other shows aren't around anymore, you watch what you can. Sure, we find out AFTER it's all said and done, what happened, but Wrestlemania was so fun that we didn't care by then. Wrestlemania was OUR legacy, something that only happened in OUR time. We knew it was historic, but no one realised it was going to become an annual event.... or it might not have gone over as well as it did.

[UkWrestleFan]

Just read the SmackDown spoilers [highlight below to read more]

 

What the hell is going on with Kane? Nexus helped him beat 'Taker. But, they've turned up on SmackDown to 'takeover' and Kane helps fight them off? Are they turning him face? Seems really, really odd to me.

[djthefunkchris]

Just read the SmackDown spoilers [highlight below to read more]

 

Interesting. I don't have a problem with it at all though. The divide between it is so "medium" now a days, that it doesn't seem out of character at all to me.... White text added to say more:

 

I've never thought that Kane was necessarily a "Good Guy" or Undertaker for that matter. To me they have always been kind of dark character's, and I don't have a problem at all if he goes up against Nexus or whatever, as it's a power thing moreso, and a brand thing probably even bigger. You can't come on my show and TAKE over. Taking over my show means you took me over too! Even if I seen him as a legitimate Heel, I wouldn't have a problem with Heel vs. Heel in this way.

[UkWrestleFan]

Interesting. I don't have a problem with it at all though. The divide between it is so "medium" now a days, that it doesn't seem out of character at all to me.... White text added to say more:

 

Ah yeah, never really thought about it like that. I instantly thought 'WTF' and never thought about it properly.

[djthefunkchris]

Ah yeah, never really thought about it like that. I instantly thought 'WTF' and never thought about it properly.

 

Just thought of something... I guess I'll have to wait to see the show if I have any forsight at all but... again with White Text below.

 

What if they are trying to set up a Cena (seeing as he's in Nexus) vs. Kane match?