WWE Needs a New Attitude Era. And It Should Star CM Punk

[pockybot]

I've finally been checking out the best moments of WWE 2011, and I have to say that was the first time in over a decade I've felt thrilled to hear a wrestler 'shoot' in the ring. I've always dug CM Punk's in ring style, as much as for awhile he kind of blended in with other indie talent. But that
RAW shoot interview from last year that capped off the 'new' cm punk got me excited.
Yet, the WWE didnt capitalize on it.

When CM Punk starts referencing rival promotions by name, talking crap on backroom politics, talking crap on mid 90's gimmicks and confronting Kevin Nash with how tired the nwo gimmick is...it's thrilling. But it feels like they didn't take it far enough. I like how Kevin Nash clowns on how smaller build indie talent is main eventers unlike the past. That sort of politic heavy dissing I miss...as much as I love the Attitude era, you rarely saw the curtain drawn back like that.

I just say it's time to take it to the next level. I'd love to see CM Punk go off script during a match he's scheduled to lose. Like not sell a move, kick out and say "oops". Or in an in ring shoot say how a wrestler is sloppy and sucks to work with in the ring. AS MUCH as we see the fourth wall broken, you never see a WWE wrestler reference in ring cues, match planning or whatever. Only on the dvd interviews. I can think of so many outside the box angles and unique opportunities the WWE could go for if it just thought a little differently.

Omg, could you imagine if CM Punk came down during an in ring confronttation/interview he wasnt involved with, or during a match...took the mic and yelled "THIS SCRIPT SUCKS! Who wrote this crap?" and got the crowd to loudly chant "this script sucks! this script sucks!" I'd be about as excited as when ecw invaded WWF raw

Heck, I'd love to see CM Punk start off a Raw, marching to the ring and taking the mic saying "tonight, Im officially gonna end the PG era". Heck Id love to see stone cold brought back with a big pop, clanging two beer cans only for cm punk to come out , beat him down and say "really vince, bringing back the same old late 90's gimmicks?"

Treating the audience smartly with sophisticated injokes and angles I think would definitely make for a wild new era. They've flirted with this, but I'd love to see them go all the way.
Heck I say bring back some of the goofy late 80s and 90's costumed wrestlers just to make a point.

[Dion Necurat]

Breaking the 4th wall in the way Punk did it = genius.

Breaking the 4th wall every week = lunacy.

[pockybot]

Dion Necurat

Breaking the 4th wall in the way Punk did it = genius.

Breaking the 4th wall every week = lunacy.

Having the Muppets puppets interfere in a wrestling match=wtf

[IndystarX]

The problem is I doubt even 50% of the casual fan would get the "sophisticated" injokes and angles. Hell, the idea of angles and storylines based on injokes basically took TNA where it was almost salvageable to basically a shell of a shell of a shell of a silhouette of its former self. Being edgy and dangerous works for Punk because he is an IWC darling, he is known for being poisoned-tongued and his promos (both during his Straight Edge Society/Jeff Hardy feud run and his RAW commentary) had hints and glimmers of the promo he eventually did. If Orton or Big Show tried something like that, no one would buy that Orton is tired of the backstage crap. Would you buy Satino being edgier than he already is? No you wouldn't. It would only work for Punk (and maybe Danielson) and no one else.

Also keep in mind, the Attitude Era worked when it did because media itself was getting risqué. What was popular in the late 90s? Jerry Springer, gangsta rap, Jackass and bands like Limp Bizkit and KoRn. It was fitting of the time. It wouldn't fit now.

[MysteriousMew]

Another Attitude Era will not happen probably for many years sadly this is due to the fact that WWE has sponsors that they couldn't get during the 1990's and are making more money cause of getting the sponsors. They are also getting more media attention as well. They now have more kids watching. During the 1990's it was mostly ages 17 and up watching WWE during the Attitude Era. At the time of the aittitude era parents wouldn't let there kids watch it cause of the blood, language, the chair shots to the head, nudity (yes there was nudity), sexual acts with Goldust, Mark Henry, Chyna, Sable, Val Venis and few other wrestlers and alot more other reasons.

2nd the PG rating is also because Linda is running for senate in Connecticut. How so? Well because no one would ever vote for a woman associated with the WWE's attitude era so they cleaned up the company basically.

3rd. It's good business. You can't always be about the violence that the attitude era had which can get boring/stale after awhile so in their words "It's starting fresh".

and last the only reasons there was an attitude era to begin with was because WWE had a rival, WCW. In the 1990's WCW was more edgier than WWE and was winning the ratings (This would go on to be called the "Monday Night Wars", until 1998/1999. WWE was falling fast to the point they could of been out of business. so WWE backfired at WCW by getting edgier themselves. But now since WWE has no rival there really wasn't a point to stay edgier to keep ratings so they changed.

Sorry for the long post just trying to help cool

[pockybot]

IndystarX

The problem is I doubt even 50% of the casual fan would get the "sophisticated" injokes and angles. Hell, the idea of angles and storylines based on injokes basically took TNA where it was almost salvageable to basically a shell of a shell of a shell of a silhouette of its former self. Being edgy and dangerous works for Punk because he is an IWC darling, he is known for being poisoned-tongued and his promos (both during his Straight Edge Society/Jeff Hardy feud run and his RAW commentary) had hints and glimmers of the promo he eventually did. If Orton or Big Show tried something like that, no one would buy that Orton is tired of the backstage crap. Would you buy Satino being edgier than he already is? No you wouldn't. It would only work for Punk (and maybe Danielson) and no one else.

Also keep in mind, the Attitude Era worked when it did because media itself was getting risqué. What was popular in the late 90s? Jerry Springer, gangsta rap, Jackass and bands like Limp Bizkit and KoRn. It was fitting of the time. It wouldn't fit now.

I don't mean just smark baiting backroom biz references. I mean just the entire thing needs to be evolved. Kevin Nash was right when he shot back at CM Punk about modern WWE sucking. Joey Styles was right in his worked shoot in 2006 about "sports entertaining" being an insult.
I was sad that they didnt run with the CM punk thing last year...they could have really ended the pg crap with a bang. Non pg doesnt have to be the gross slutty s**t of the late 90's. To me its about SMART writing, bringing in awe inspiring personas, and just a sense of unpredictability.
When every damn wrestler is a pretty boy with razor wire tattoos all using their real names, its kind of generic. Not saying we need to go back to early-mid 90's costume clown time, but
I think Boogeymanw as the last time the WWE had an interesting character.

Im excited with what potential CM Punk has, but it doesnt feel like they utilized it as best as they could.

Ha, I remember that shitty s**t 1998-2002 period...razor wire tribal tats, rap rock tough guy nu metal, "hella sick for days". Sadly my city is still stuck in that period(just mixed with juggalos, bros, jocks and dubstep)

Also who else is 'edgy' in the WWE? They have this potential to really make it exciting, bring back the older fans...but they fail.

[pockybot]

About TNA...its NOT just their in-reference/Vince Russo/trying to be WCW circa 2001 garbage mindset...its the fact they just suck in general.

The main event of a recent ppv was what, 53 year old Sting shooting a quick "win" on a totally wasted and embarassing Jeff Hardy in 60 seconds. Woo! TNA is painful to watch...its like it's 1999 again with lower production values and really creaky old wrestlers trying to play it like they're in their prime.

SpecialAgentJKennedy

Another Attitude Era will not happen probably for many years sadly this is due to the fact that WWE has sponsors that they couldn't get during the 1990's and are making more money cause of getting the sponsors. They are also getting more media attention as well. They now have more kids watching. During the 1990's it was mostly ages 17 and up watching WWE during the Attitude Era. At the time of the aittitude era parents wouldn't let there kids watch it cause of the blood, language, the chair shots to the head, nudity (yes there was nudity), sexual acts with Goldust, Mark Henry, Chyna, Sable, Val Venis and few other wrestlers and alot more other reasons.

2nd the PG rating is also because Linda is running for senate in Connecticut. How so? Well because no one would ever vote for a woman associated with the WWE's attitude era so they cleaned up the company basically.

3rd. It's good business. You can't always be about the violence that the attitude era had which can get boring/stale after awhile so in their words "It's starting fresh".

and last the only reasons there was an attitude era to begin with was because WWE had a rival, WCW. In the 1990's WCW was more edgier than WWE and was winning the ratings (This would go on to be called the "Monday Night Wars", until 1998/1999. WWE was falling fast to the point they could of been out of business. so WWE backfired at WCW by getting edgier themselves. But now since WWE has no rival there really wasn't a point to stay edgier to keep ratings so they changed.

Sorry for the long post just trying to help cool

I didn't like most the sexual stuff. I DID like the crazy matches, unpredictability, etc.

Most wrestlers(oh Im sorry, "superstar entertainers" wink cant cut a decent promo to save their career aside from CM Punk. And how the hell does a WM main event get announced a YEAR prior to it, and it being lame a** generic jobber Cena versus a guy who doesnt even wrestle anymore? Its a joke, like handing Arquette the title in 2000.

So because there is no competition, there's no need for WWE to try and be innovative? I guess that's their reasoning. A lot of people had hope after the CM Punk May 2001 'shoot', but sadly I dont know if they truly capitalized on it. Also I don't believe Linda is in the running anymore, could be wrong tho

[MysteriousMew]

pockybot

About TNA...its NOT just their in-reference/Vince Russo/trying to be WCW circa 2001 garbage mindset...its the fact they just suck in general.

The main event of a recent ppv was what, 53 year old Sting shooting a quick "win" on a totally wasted and embarassing Jeff Hardy in 60 seconds. Woo! TNA is painful to watch...its like it's 1999 again with lower production values and really creaky old wrestlers trying to play it like they're in their prime.

SpecialAgentJKennedy

Another Attitude Era will not happen probably for many years sadly this is due to the fact that WWE has sponsors that they couldn't get during the 1990's and are making more money cause of getting the sponsors. They are also getting more media attention as well. They now have more kids watching. During the 1990's it was mostly ages 17 and up watching WWE during the Attitude Era. At the time of the aittitude era parents wouldn't let there kids watch it cause of the blood, language, the chair shots to the head, nudity (yes there was nudity), sexual acts with Goldust, Mark Henry, Chyna, Sable, Val Venis and few other wrestlers and alot more other reasons.

2nd the PG rating is also because Linda is running for senate in Connecticut. How so? Well because no one would ever vote for a woman associated with the WWE's attitude era so they cleaned up the company basically.

3rd. It's good business. You can't always be about the violence that the attitude era had which can get boring/stale after awhile so in their words "It's starting fresh".

and last the only reasons there was an attitude era to begin with was because WWE had a rival, WCW. In the 1990's WCW was more edgier than WWE and was winning the ratings (This would go on to be called the "Monday Night Wars", until 1998/1999. WWE was falling fast to the point they could of been out of business. so WWE backfired at WCW by getting edgier themselves. But now since WWE has no rival there really wasn't a point to stay edgier to keep ratings so they changed.

Sorry for the long post just trying to help cool

I didn't like most the sexual stuff. I DID like the crazy matches, unpredictability, etc.

Most wrestlers(oh Im sorry, "superstar entertainers" wink cant cut a decent promo to save their career aside from CM Punk. And how the hell does a WM main event get announced a YEAR prior to it, and it being lame a** generic jobber Cena versus a guy who doesnt even wrestle anymore? Its a joke, like handing Arquette the title in 2000.

So because there is no competition, there's no need for WWE to try and be innovative? I guess that's their reasoning. A lot of people had hope after the CM Punk May 2001 'shoot', but sadly I dont know if they truly capitalized on it. Also I don't believe Linda is in the running anymore, could be wrong tho

Linda is still running for senate sadly. As for "So because there is no competition, there's no need for WWE to try and be innovative?" Which is basically true cause think about it back in 1990's when WWE was going against WCW, WWE tried every monday to be innovative but since WCW is gone you can tell they don't try to be innovative anymore and everyone notices it with the low ratings, PPV's aren't being bought as much, etc. I'm sure they try to be innovative just not as much as they use to.

[pockybot]

SpecialAgentJKennedy

pockybot

About TNA...its NOT just their in-reference/Vince Russo/trying to be WCW circa 2001 garbage mindset...its the fact they just suck in general.

The main event of a recent ppv was what, 53 year old Sting shooting a quick "win" on a totally wasted and embarassing Jeff Hardy in 60 seconds. Woo! TNA is painful to watch...its like it's 1999 again with lower production values and really creaky old wrestlers trying to play it like they're in their prime.

SpecialAgentJKennedy

Another Attitude Era will not happen probably for many years sadly this is due to the fact that WWE has sponsors that they couldn't get during the 1990's and are making more money cause of getting the sponsors. They are also getting more media attention as well. They now have more kids watching. During the 1990's it was mostly ages 17 and up watching WWE during the Attitude Era. At the time of the aittitude era parents wouldn't let there kids watch it cause of the blood, language, the chair shots to the head, nudity (yes there was nudity), sexual acts with Goldust, Mark Henry, Chyna, Sable, Val Venis and few other wrestlers and alot more other reasons.

2nd the PG rating is also because Linda is running for senate in Connecticut. How so? Well because no one would ever vote for a woman associated with the WWE's attitude era so they cleaned up the company basically.

3rd. It's good business. You can't always be about the violence that the attitude era had which can get boring/stale after awhile so in their words "It's starting fresh".

and last the only reasons there was an attitude era to begin with was because WWE had a rival, WCW. In the 1990's WCW was more edgier than WWE and was winning the ratings (This would go on to be called the "Monday Night Wars", until 1998/1999. WWE was falling fast to the point they could of been out of business. so WWE backfired at WCW by getting edgier themselves. But now since WWE has no rival there really wasn't a point to stay edgier to keep ratings so they changed.

Sorry for the long post just trying to help cool

I didn't like most the sexual stuff. I DID like the crazy matches, unpredictability, etc.

Most wrestlers(oh Im sorry, "superstar entertainers" wink cant cut a decent promo to save their career aside from CM Punk. And how the hell does a WM main event get announced a YEAR prior to it, and it being lame a** generic jobber Cena versus a guy who doesnt even wrestle anymore? Its a joke, like handing Arquette the title in 2000.

So because there is no competition, there's no need for WWE to try and be innovative? I guess that's their reasoning. A lot of people had hope after the CM Punk May 2001 'shoot', but sadly I dont know if they truly capitalized on it. Also I don't believe Linda is in the running anymore, could be wrong tho

Linda is still running for senate sadly. As for "So because there is no competition, there's no need for WWE to try and be innovative?" Which is basically true cause think about it back in 1990's when WWE was going against WCW, WWE tried every monday to be innovative but since WCW is gone you can tell they don't try to be innovative anymore and everyone notices it with the low ratings, PPV's aren't being bought as much, etc. I'm sure they try to be innovative just not as much as they use to.

Oh not JUST WCW. People forget that the Attitude era was directly taken from ECW, who in late 1996-spring 1997 were in that amazing ECW Invades WWF angle(which felt real at the time) I had no idea that secretly Vince was giving large checks to Paul Heyman, long before WWF officially bought them. Regardless tho, I remember how insanely exciting televised wrestling was. You had not just WWF, NWO era WCW, and ECW...but you had the emergence of pro wrestling news sites that made everyone a "smark". It was like this whole new world that had opened up.

I also grew up in the other PG period of WWF. Namely 1980's through 1995. 1996 is when Attitude started, but WWF had become so unwatchable by 1993 that something needed to happen. But I truly feel 1987-1992 WWF was also amazing...even tho most those guys are dead.

I just dont get why TNA just can't get their head on straight. They are alotted talent buy money, a somewhat decent production, prime time tv real estate...yet it's just a really bad product. And not low budget spotty match indie sort of bad, but just...well lame. Like early 2000's WWF or WCW bad.

[MysteriousMew]

pockybot

SpecialAgentJKennedy

pockybot

About TNA...its NOT just their in-reference/Vince Russo/trying to be WCW circa 2001 garbage mindset...its the fact they just suck in general.

The main event of a recent ppv was what, 53 year old Sting shooting a quick "win" on a totally wasted and embarassing Jeff Hardy in 60 seconds. Woo! TNA is painful to watch...its like it's 1999 again with lower production values and really creaky old wrestlers trying to play it like they're in their prime.

SpecialAgentJKennedy

Another Attitude Era will not happen probably for many years sadly this is due to the fact that WWE has sponsors that they couldn't get during the 1990's and are making more money cause of getting the sponsors. They are also getting more media attention as well. They now have more kids watching. During the 1990's it was mostly ages 17 and up watching WWE during the Attitude Era. At the time of the aittitude era parents wouldn't let there kids watch it cause of the blood, language, the chair shots to the head, nudity (yes there was nudity), sexual acts with Goldust, Mark Henry, Chyna, Sable, Val Venis and few other wrestlers and alot more other reasons.

2nd the PG rating is also because Linda is running for senate in Connecticut. How so? Well because no one would ever vote for a woman associated with the WWE's attitude era so they cleaned up the company basically.

3rd. It's good business. You can't always be about the violence that the attitude era had which can get boring/stale after awhile so in their words "It's starting fresh".

and last the only reasons there was an attitude era to begin with was because WWE had a rival, WCW. In the 1990's WCW was more edgier than WWE and was winning the ratings (This would go on to be called the "Monday Night Wars", until 1998/1999. WWE was falling fast to the point they could of been out of business. so WWE backfired at WCW by getting edgier themselves. But now since WWE has no rival there really wasn't a point to stay edgier to keep ratings so they changed.

Sorry for the long post just trying to help cool

I didn't like most the sexual stuff. I DID like the crazy matches, unpredictability, etc.

Most wrestlers(oh Im sorry, "superstar entertainers" wink cant cut a decent promo to save their career aside from CM Punk. And how the hell does a WM main event get announced a YEAR prior to it, and it being lame a** generic jobber Cena versus a guy who doesnt even wrestle anymore? Its a joke, like handing Arquette the title in 2000.

So because there is no competition, there's no need for WWE to try and be innovative? I guess that's their reasoning. A lot of people had hope after the CM Punk May 2001 'shoot', but sadly I dont know if they truly capitalized on it. Also I don't believe Linda is in the running anymore, could be wrong tho

Linda is still running for senate sadly. As for "So because there is no competition, there's no need for WWE to try and be innovative?" Which is basically true cause think about it back in 1990's when WWE was going against WCW, WWE tried every monday to be innovative but since WCW is gone you can tell they don't try to be innovative anymore and everyone notices it with the low ratings, PPV's aren't being bought as much, etc. I'm sure they try to be innovative just not as much as they use to.

Oh not JUST WCW. People forget that the Attitude era was directly taken from ECW, who in late 1996-spring 1997 were in that amazing ECW Invades WWF angle(which felt real at the time) I had no idea that secretly Vince was giving large checks to Paul Heyman, long before WWF officially bought them. Regardless tho, I remember how insanely exciting televised wrestling was. You had not just WWF, NWO era WCW, and ECW...but you had the emergence of pro wrestling news sites that made everyone a "smark". It was like this whole new world that had opened up.

I also grew up in the other PG period of WWF. Namely 1980's through 1995. 1996 is when Attitude started, but WWF had become so unwatchable by 1993 that something needed to happen. But I truly feel 1987-1992 WWF was also amazing...even tho most those guys are dead.

I just dont get why TNA just can't get their head on straight. They are alotted talent buy money, a somewhat decent production, prime time tv real estate...yet it's just a really bad product. And not low budget spotty match indie sort of bad, but just...well lame. Like early 2000's WWF or WCW bad.

My god you have made my day with your knowledge I'm glad to see people know their wrestling stuff haha. I didn't really mention ECW in my posts just cause they were being helped and wasn't really a rival to WWE like WCW was.

It wasn't much a secret that Vince gave Paul actually, if I remember correctly Vince's name or the WWF's name was in the credits after ECW shows. I grew up on wrestling since 1994 which was PG as well like you said. I went to ECW shows in Philly with family since its only about a 2 hour drive from me crazy shows.

As for TNA I think they are just trying to create there own thing which can take alot of time to just make it perfect and well balanced. Gotta remember they ain't WWE meaning they don't have alot of money to get better time slots, make good production, etc but with in time I do believe TNA will get better not as good as WWE but still better.

[pockybot]

SpecialAgentJKennedy

My god you have made my day with your knowledge I'm glad to see people know their wrestling stuff haha. I didn't really mention ECW in my posts just cause they were being helped and wasn't really a rival to WWE like WCW was.

It wasn't much a secret that Vince gave Paul actually, if I remember correctly Vince's name or the WWF's name was in the credits after ECW shows. I grew up on wrestling since 1994 which was PG as well like you said. I went to ECW shows in Philly with family since its only about a 2 hour drive from me crazy shows.

As for TNA I think they are just trying to create there own thing which can take alot of time to just make it perfect and well balanced. Gotta remember they ain't WWE meaning they don't have alot of money to get better time slots, make good production, etc but with in time I do believe TNA will get better not as good as WWE but still better.

Well I was a big wrestling fan all my life. Started watching WWF in 1986, and was also a big fan of NWA(WCW), AWA, etc. Got BIG into WCW in 1989/1990. I think it was by 2000/2001 I began to lose interest in wrestling. And after WWF bought WCW, then changed the name to WWE and botched the dream WWF vs WCW vs NWO vs ECW angle, I kind of gave up. Im glad they got rid of the dangerous drug/rX/alcohol culture that killed a large portion of superstars, but WWE as a product feels so boring to me

I think the main blunder of TNA(besides the lame six sided ring) is how they are so stuck in trying to recreate the Russo WCW period of 99-2001. They have an arena that looks like mid 90's WCW Saturday night, and use it for PPV's which looks lame. Just from all angles they've made a lot of blunders. And when you title a show like a drama or comedy series, it just looks bad.

ECW had nothing, but underneath the hardcore stuff they were a hotbed for what would become the biggest names in wrestling. There was definitely a charm, even though they were such a dangerous sort of company. Im reminded of New Jack, who was blinded and suffered brain damage from a scaffolding match and then tried to kill other wrestlers later on. I don't think ECW could exist today and be as mainstream as they had gotten by 1999/2000. But the 2006 "resurrection" of ECW I felt was a joke. A WWE ECW is anathema, given ECW were the ghetto non corporate outsiders. But that 1996-2001 period forced everyone to push the envelope.
That Foley v Taker match at Hell in a Cell...I mean that is the pure personification of how extreme that period was getting, where wrestlers could have easily died back then.

To me its not about money for production or talent buys, but about smart writing and other ways of presenting a product and innovation. And for so long, TNA has been in this insulated nostalgic trip that just isn't working.

[MysteriousMew]

pockybot

SpecialAgentJKennedy

My god you have made my day with your knowledge I'm glad to see people know their wrestling stuff haha. I didn't really mention ECW in my posts just cause they were being helped and wasn't really a rival to WWE like WCW was.

It wasn't much a secret that Vince gave Paul actually, if I remember correctly Vince's name or the WWF's name was in the credits after ECW shows. I grew up on wrestling since 1994 which was PG as well like you said. I went to ECW shows in Philly with family since its only about a 2 hour drive from me crazy shows.

As for TNA I think they are just trying to create there own thing which can take alot of time to just make it perfect and well balanced. Gotta remember they ain't WWE meaning they don't have alot of money to get better time slots, make good production, etc but with in time I do believe TNA will get better not as good as WWE but still better.

Well I was a big wrestling fan all my life. Started watching WWF in 1986, and was also a big fan of NWA(WCW), AWA, etc. Got BIG into WCW in 1989/1990. I think it was by 2000/2001 I began to lose interest in wrestling. And after WWF bought WCW, then changed the name to WWE and botched the dream WWF vs WCW vs NWO vs ECW angle, I kind of gave up. Im glad they got rid of the dangerous drug/rX/alcohol culture that killed a large portion of superstars, but WWE as a product feels so boring to me

I think the main blunder of TNA(besides the lame six sided ring) is how they are so stuck in trying to recreate the Russo WCW period of 99-2001. They have an arena that looks like mid 90's WCW Saturday night, and use it for PPV's which looks lame. Just from all angles they've made a lot of blunders. And when you title a show like a drama or comedy series, it just looks bad.

ECW had nothing, but underneath the hardcore stuff they were a hotbed for what would become the biggest names in wrestling. There was definitely a charm, even though they were such a dangerous sort of company. Im reminded of New Jack, who was blinded and suffered brain damage from a scaffolding match and then tried to kill other wrestlers later on. I don't think ECW could exist today and be as mainstream as they had gotten by 1999/2000. But the 2006 "resurrection" of ECW I felt was a joke. A WWE ECW is anathema, given ECW were the ghetto non corporate outsiders. But that 1996-2001 period forced everyone to push the envelope.
That Foley v Taker match at Hell in a Cell...I mean that is the pure personification of how extreme that period was getting, where wrestlers could have easily died back then.

To me its not about money for production or talent buys, but about smart writing and other ways of presenting a product and innovation. And for so long, TNA has been in this insulated nostalgic trip that just isn't working.

I think wrestling in general tries to recreate certain things like the Vince Russo period because wrestlers, fans etc all miss them days cause the 1990's and of course the 1970's-1980's as well was the time to be a wrestling fan, it was the best time for wrestling. You look at wrestling today it's slowly dying. ECW indeed had nothing but they had that charm like you said. Almost everyone, specially Philadelphia loved ECW its sad that such amazing company died.

The WWE's ECW to me was practically a slap in the face to the fans of ECW, the wrestlers, and to Philly. They should of never done that. It sickens me.

Well with TNA having alot of old WCW stars I think they are going to be stuck in the past until TNA goes down hill completely hopefully that won't happen cause it's nice once in awhile to watch a different wrestling program even if its crappy. But like I said I think TNA will get better within time.

[pockybot]

SpecialAgentJKennedy

I think wrestling in general tries to recreate certain things like the Vince Russo period because wrestlers, fans etc all miss them days cause the 1990's and of course the 1970's-1980's as well was the time to be a wrestling fan, it was the best time for wrestling. You look at wrestling today it's slowly dying. ECW indeed had nothing but they had that charm like you said. Almost everyone, specially Philadelphia loved ECW its sad that such amazing company died.

The WWE's ECW to me was practically a slap in the face to the fans of ECW, the wrestlers, and to Philly. They should of never done that. It sickens me.

Well with TNA having alot of old WCW stars I think they are going to be stuck in the past until TNA goes down hill completely hopefully that won't happen cause it's nice once in awhile to watch a different wrestling program even if its crappy. But like I said I think TNA will get better within time.

There's really only been three Raws in recent years where I got excited...and mostly just for a few moments. The "retro raw" from November 2010(tho I didnt think they went far enough with the theme), the CM Punk May 2011 "shoot" and the CM Punk confrontation with Kevin Nash where they talk about the 90's vs now.

But...to me it doesn't hold a candle to the days when my friends and I would be in "holy s**t awe", on our feet and disbelief. Moments like when Scott Hall shows up on WCW Nitro live, and you think it's a WWF invasion. Moments like Stone Cold with the Zambone/super clothesline(greatest raw moment ever to me), the ECW invading WWF angle, the night after the Montreal screwjob, and especially when DX invaded Nitro live on tv. Also just the wrestling...WWF outside of Brett Hart/Michaels, Ramon/Michaels and other classic matches to me just didnt have that good of actual matches prior to the 97 attitude era. But WCW...
while everyone remembers the game changing NWO angle, for me it was also the debut of
techincal, lucha libre and Japanese styles that blew my mind.

I remember the July 1996 Walt Disney World live Nitro show the monday after Hogan's NWO turn. Opening bout was(If Im recalling right), Dean Malenko vs Rey Mysterio. Just amazing to watch. And those guys, like Malenko, Jericho, Guerrerro and especially Benoit in WCW and later WWF were astonishing. You no longer had big buff dudes like Luger, Warrior and Hogan just doing goofy showboating, but these dazzling scientific spectacles. And not the substance less spotfest matches of the Hardy boys or indie feds...but really beautiful matches you could go back and watch again.

Loved that time...when WWF Shotgun Saturday Night and Nitro were live from strange locations far from an arena all the time. When it felt like anything could happen.

The problem for me is WWF Raw *literally* looks like it did ten years ago. Same damn set design, same look. I see footage of WWE Raw from 2005 and 2012, and I can't even tell the difference. I also miss those larger than life/cryptic characters...like the debut of Mankind, Glacier, El Gigante, Undertaker circa 1990-1991, etc.

Now days when I get in the mood for wrestling, it's usually WWE documentaries...which, with the exception of the annoying WWF scratch logo censoring, are pretty amazing given they have access to every piece of wrestling footage in America as well as freedom to openly talk real(scripts, choreograph changes, real feuds, bad blood, etc)
I get so excited when I see old school footage...the fancyless floor level entrances, howard finkle and oakerland's voice, the darker lighting, etc. Sure the WWF was lame in the 93-96 period, with so many bad gimmick wrestlers and such...but it's like now it's too polished with not enough circus.

Wrestling I think has changed, in large part because of the indie feds. Both the focus on physique over gimmicks, the major evolution of new moves used, etc. Back in the 80's, the only moves you ever saw were dropkicks, body slams, suplexes, eldows, etc. Then by the 90's we saw a lot of huricanrana/frankensteiners and variations thereof, lots of arm drags, ropes used for high spots outside the ring, and just a more fast paced style(especially the luchidore/japanese influence) Now we don't see much high flying, but we see a much different style. But we still see the same lame brained "guy interferes at last second" type finish. At least they've brought back squashmatches...I kind of missed those.

TNA needs to do something major brands do: focus groups, cool hunters and market research. Listen to long time fans and bring in fresh writers, talent...and come up with a new concept for what they want if they truly want to be something special.
Btw, I found the *ultimate* wrestling insider show on youtube, where you can hear everyone from CM Punk to countless indie and past stars pull back the curtain on everything imaginable
http://www.youtube.com/user/TVTraX#p/u

[jedinightwing]

pockybot

Dion Necurat

Breaking the 4th wall in the way Punk did it = genius.

Breaking the 4th wall every week = lunacy.

Having the Muppets puppets interfere in a wrestling match=wtf

It was just a Santino vs Jack Swagger match, so it's all good.

Statler: Could that have been any better?
Waldorf: Couldn't have been any worse!

[pockybot]

jedinightwing

pockybot

Dion Necurat

Breaking the 4th wall in the way Punk did it = genius.

Breaking the 4th wall every week = lunacy.

Having the Muppets puppets interfere in a wrestling match=wtf

It was just a Santino vs Jack Swagger match, so it's all good.

Statler: Could that have been any better?
Waldorf: Couldn't have been any worse!

Right...but at this point, if they want to go to that reach of disbelief, why not have a guy in a mo cap green suit fight a squash match where he's later composited with cgi over him

Heck I say have CM Punk come down with a mic, interrupt an in ring feud and say he could script way better stuff...then hand them a script he just wrote.