Who was better?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by DGenerateToAwesome, Jul 28, 2012.

  1. In my opinion, I think WWF was better cause they had Stone Cold's :finger: and at least they didn't have this guy :ace: plus thats when the attitude era and none of that PG crap
  2. WWF was better imo, but Big Johnny Ace is f****** epic, how anyone can hate him, I do not know.
  3. I agree with you? o.o
  4. What are you even asking lol
  5. He's one of those "ATTITUDE ERA WAS BETTER CAUSE THERE WAS BLOOD AND CURSING!" guys. Not looking at match quality or many of the other factors.
  6. That's a bit unfair imo, Attitude era was better imo, because storylines were far greater, Raw was better then, and we didn't have Cena or Sheamus then to ruin everything, it was a day when heels could actually win.:yay:
    Although I understand that is your opinion and this is mine, I just enjoyed the Attitude era more.
  8. I am one of those who think of this blatant defending of the Attitude era is just stupid. Because if you compare the stories from then and now they weren't better. They are conceived as such because in the attitude era wrestling was mainstream. It was cool to like wrestling. Nowadays it has become a sub-culture yet again. During the Attitude Era mainstream critics gave their opinions on wrestling stories, that seldom happens nowadays even though a lot of the stories nowadays make more sense. The AE ended up trying to just garner shock value at the end anyway, kind of like Family Guy now.
  9. Touche, I hate losing :((


    One thing that's really getting on my nerves though is the title, it says "Who was better", it should be "What was better". Or "When was better".
  10. Well not just that, it's cause of all the realistic things like the beartrap they put X-Poc in the flaming tables, It was just so awesome but PG era was good too cause they gave us Sheamus and alot more
  11. The funny thing is always people complain about the super hero booking of today, yet they cheer Austin taking on groups of 5/6 guys and winning. They celebrate when he had the decked stacked against him but constantly overcame the odds.
  12. That's probably because it was more fun for most of us to root for Austin's anti-hero, beer-drinking, azz-kicking gimmick than it is for us to root for Cena's smiley, happy-guy in a purple/bright orange/neon green/bright red shirt who all the little kids love gimmick.

  13. Whilst this is true, that doesn't debate the issue with the super hero persona does it? We don't have a problem with Cena winning, rather the character he's portraying. Yet many people list him always winning as the issue, it's the same as people who praise Hogan, Warrior and the other faces who were of a similar style.
  14. I get this point isn't exactly part of the superhero booking argument but I'll chuck it out there anyway.

    The difference between John Cena just now and Stone Cold of the attitude era was summed up in that Michael Cole vs John Cena main event a few weeks ago. John Cena erotically stripped him of his clothes and dumped BBQ sauce all over his semi nude body. Austin however would have beat the living shit out of him before drowning him in budweisers and having a great time with the crowd. Although I wasn't around at the time and I think the love for the AE is mainly nostalgia driven I can understand why people would favour Stone Cold and The Rock over a watered down Cena, Sheamus and Orton.
  15. ECW was doing the attitude era shit before WWF. And in my opinion the name change didn't do anything. Ruthless Aggression era was pretty badass and had some of that stuff, not all of it, but it was still great. I personally think Big Johnny did good as a heel GM, even though really the faces were acting like heels at time like when Sheamus attacked the referee out of anger. CM Punk can go toe to toe with Stone Cold on the microphone and possibly better in ring. As for PG, I don't care as long as the stories are good, they don't have to have much cussing or blood, just need to be surprising and logical.