Richie Freebird Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted June 13, 2011 Moderators Share Posted June 13, 2011 Your taste is weird and inconsistent, fair dues. You moan about the standard of in-ring mainstream wrestling being dire now and tyhings being daft, but it was absolutely fucking reprehensible in 1999 out of the main events and a few tag teams along with things like daft shite like Chaz, Meat and Prince Albert and Key and that. The standard of wrestling itself in WWE is better than that in 1999 WWF. You just don't like things everyone else likes. Â 2000 WWF was ace though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Freebird Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 You do have a point saying my tastes are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyUK Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 There was a lot of garbage, as there usually is with wrestling so I wouldn't exactly say the year was great but the main event storylines and characters at the time were so entertaining that they outweighed the trash that we did get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jock Knew Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 In Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted June 13, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 13, 2011 I loved 1999 at the time. A lot of the stuff doesnt hold up today, but at school at the time it was a perfect example how if you have the momentum and the audience, you can get anyway with anything. If WWE gave a predicated ending in 2011 like they did with the Higher Power (which was built for months with a predictable ending) everyone would claim that they've killed business and all that. In 1999 though, it was just another talking point for school the next morning. If business is hot, you can get away with so much more. Thats why TNA will always be fucked in the Impact Zone. For me shit angles are made decent with a hot crowd. But good angles can be made into mega angles when there is a crowd going mental. Everything seemed big time in 1999. Everyone loved wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Freebird Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I loved 1999 at the time. A lot of the stuff doesnt hold up today, but at school at the time it was a perfect example how if you have the momentum and the audience, you can get anyway with anything. If WWE gave a predicated ending in 2011 like they did with the Higher Power (which was built for months with a predictable ending) everyone would claim that they've killed business and all that. In 1999 though, it was just another talking point for school the next morning. If business is hot, you can get away with so much more. Thats why TNA will always be fucked in the Impact Zone. For me shit angles are made decent with a hot crowd. But good angles can be made into mega angles when there is a crowd going mental. Everything seemed big time in 1999. Everyone loved wrestling. Â That Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted June 13, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 13, 2011 I don't think 1999 in general wasn't good, I think for consistency of match quality, 1999 beats 1998. It's just that 2000 makes 1999 look like 1995! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freaky Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 For the most part, I hated 1999. And I don't mean looking back either - at the time, I couldn't stand most of it. The only shining lights were D'Lo Brown and The Rock, with minor cameos by Chris Jericho in the summer and Mick Foley at the start of the year. Â After WrestleMania, I was so sick of Steve Austin, and everything just felt so far fetched or deliberately attention seeking with the controversy, and it bored me. Coupled with the death of Owen Hart and a lack of opportunity to watch the pay-per-views, and it was the closest I've ever been to stopping watching wrestling altogether. Luckily, I went to university, had a group of mates who all loved wrestling and ended up spending every Friday night and 1 Sunday a month at Riley's 24 hour sports bar in Nottingham watching the shows on a massive projector. Â I have to agree with others in that 2000 had the best wrestling, but the whole of 1997 was a work of genius when it came to storylines. Those first few months with Steve Austin and Bret Hart beating fuck out of each other, Hart slowly unravelling and the sheer chaos that you felt on episodes of Raw was amazing. Sure, there was a lot of crap on there - the Sultan and Rockabilly immediately pop into my mind - but the top-line stuff was so gritty and realistic that it has the right to walk past 1999 on the beach and kick sand into its stupid pantomime face, laugh heartily and then walk off into the sunset with 1999's girlfriend. Having said that, he'd dump Debra in 1999 for Sunny in 1997. Â I don't think 1999 in general wasn't good, I think for consistency of match quality, 1999 beats 1998. It's just that 2000 makes 1999 look like 1995! 1995 had some good wrestling in there. SummerSlam of that year was particularly great. I'll choose to ignore WrestleMania XI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uwc39 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 The business was so hot at the time that people forget 1999 was pretty poor both in the ring and booking-wise. Â The Undertaker limped around for 9 months as some sort of tweener before taking about 9 months off for his much-needed surgery. The Big Show just wasn't getting over despite 5 or 6 turns. Austin was getting a bit stale, as were the DX members HHH left behind when he got his push. PPV's were mostly horrible with maybe 2 exceptions. Â The only real things that came anywhere close to the 2 years before and after were Jericho's debut, Kane's face turn and the Rock just being the Rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fye Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I watched World of Sport then WWF and WCW as a kid and got back into wrestling when we got Sky in early 99. I tuned into the Rumble and was hooked more than ever. I loved 99 purely because it was the year I fell in love with wrestling but in hindsight I wish my folks had got Sky 2 years earlier as I missed so much from 97-99 Â I will always look at 99 with rose tinted glasses but I can understand why people think it wasnt all its cracked up to be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted June 14, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 14, 2011 The Big Show just wasn't getting over despite 5 or 6 turns. Â The constant turning might have had something to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeymike83 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 The Big Show just wasn't getting over despite 5 or 6 turns. Â The constant turning might have had something to do with it. Â The irony of those turns was perfect, at the time of Show's first turn (WM XV), there was an interview with him in Raw magazine where his main gripe with WCW was that he turned so often that he lost sight of his direction and wondered whether he should bother or not improving himself and/or caring about his performances. Â That'll explain the last 12 years then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smeg_&_The_Heads Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Nothing has really changed with Big Show though ever since his d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reznor Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 sorry, getting a bit confused here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.