Jump to content

Worst time for wrestling 80s or now


humanracer

Recommended Posts

Everyone moans about the current state of wrestling but isn't it better now than in the 80s? I started watching from the early 90s but from watching DVDs and such, my summary of the 80s is:

 

PPVs with tons of matches, with the undercard and midcard matches being of very short duration (some even just a few minutes)

 

"monster" wrestlers who looked the part but didn't have much "in ring" skills.

 

Obvious steroid use

 

The top babyface (HOGAN) lacking technical wrestling skills. Hogan's matches typically ended the same way and were full of cliches. He looked the part and had a wholesome image but a lot of his matches were dire.

 

 

Today we have a top babyface who has limited wrestling skills but is arguably a supsterstar. Same as the 80s then. But at least today we have a slightly better mid card and the matches are longer. Also there is less drug use.

 

I think fans are spoiled because we had a period in the 90s were the top faces such Hart,Austin and The Rock were also top wrestlers and never usually failed to put on a great match. We also had a great pool of talent such as Michaels,Triple H and Mick Foley, all of whom excelled as both heels and faces. That golden age is over.

 

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Paid Members

The 1980s was better than now for me by a country mile. Better roster, bigger stars, better workers (and by that I mean workers not "technical skillz"), more charismatic performers, bigger arenas, more of a big time feel. And as far as the midcard - who today is better than Curt Hennig or Arn Anderson or Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels or Marty Jannetty or Hacksaw Duggan or Rick Rude or Jake Roberts or Rick Martel or the Honky Tonk Man or the Big Boss Man or Greg Valentine or Jacques Rougeaus or Dusty Rhodes or Koko B Ware or Earthquake or Ron Garvin or Bill Eadie or Barry Darsaw or Tito Santana or Ted DiBiase. There's no comparison between the midcard performers of today and from the cartoon era. I wonder how many people in 20 years time will be arguing that so-and-so should have had a title reign like they do with DiBiase and Hennig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
The top babyface (HOGAN) lacking technical wrestling skills. Hogan's matches typically ended the same way and were full of cliches. He looked the part and had a wholesome image but a lot of his matches were dire.

I think you're backwards thinking is a little backward. Hogan didn't lack technical skills at all, but he was posible the best worker in the business back then so he knew exactly what to do and when to do it for maximum impact. You say his matches were full of cliches, what do you even mean by that? Were they really cliches back then?

 

I'd say the 80's was considerably better than today. Everything seemed to mean so much more. The titles meant so much more. The PPV's felt so much more important. The wrestlers were unique, they stood out, they weren't made from a cookie cutter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people complain way too much about todays product (probably me included rather hypocritically) but for the most part I enjoy it. There has been some amazing storylines in recent years.

 

I can't really say about the 80s, but I've watched pretty much all the ppvs from mania onwards and most of the SNMEs. But from watching that the differences are Tag Teams, an entertaining midcard and just overall presentation.

 

The wealth of Tag Teams in that era was phenomenal, now the tag team division really is an aftethought and its heartbreaking as a fan of tag team wrestling. I'd just love to see a bit more care, re-unite the Hart Dynasty, have Trent Baretta and Curt Hawkins as the Dudebusters, then you've got the finally entertaining Uso Brothers, and Santino and Koslov along with McGuilicutty and Otunga. It might be alright.

 

Then the midcard...I love the talent wwe have got at the moment but there never really seems to be a lot going on. Compared to the 80s when it seemed everyone from top to bottom was involved in something, or else had a gimmick which made them entertaining no matter what they did, it was great. You cared about the undercard, Koko B. Ware was over as fuck, but today you're not given a lot of reason to care for the boys working hard on the undercard. Also there is a lot of great talent not being used, but are still employed. Either release or put them on TV. Chris Masters has been rocking on Superstars, Tyler Reks looks bad ass and he's just beggin to be put on TV as a monster badass heel.

 

So overall I just want a bit more love and attention given to the undercard, and maybe a few more main event guys to rival Cena and Orton, not just guys fed to them then killed off. I also feel the presentation could be better, Smackdown and Raw both still remind me of the Attitude era, they need to change the arena and entrance way to give it a different feel and define what they want to be as a company. Plug in to pop culture/whatever audience they want, 80's was Rock n' Wrestling. Today its just nothing, no gimmicks are really relevant and I think a lot of people find it hard to connect with the chatacters on TV which are like a mix of cartoon over the top, and just super serious normal people.

 

This may appear a bit scattershot but i think most points are valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah the 80's had a great midcard and an excellent tag division. Some stars today are more skillful and better to watch but what must be taken into account is the era. Shawn Michaels could do moonsaults in the 80's but didn't do them very often because they were seen as so spectacular to not be used every night. Slowly but surely this has changed where certain moves are used all the time that weren't even considered in the 80's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm strange in that I tend to think the overall product has actually improved over the years. I think the production is fantastic these days, and I absolutely love what they're doing.

 

I'm a lot more critical from a booking standpoint, but obviously I wasn't going to be picking that apart as a 5 year old.

 

But sometimes I have a hard time watching older shows because I think they look shit, a lot of it is slow paced etc, and I fail to see what I enjoyed at the time.

 

Don't get me wrong, a lot of stuff stands up over time, but I think I'm a very 'now' kinda guy when it comes to the product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Totally dumbfounded by the OP's opinion and comparison. For me, the best period of WWF/E was from around 1987-1992, with the Attitude Era a close second.

 

Little in-ring skills? Are you serious bro? How about:

 

Hart Foundation

Ricky Steamboat

Greg Valentine

Rougeau Brothers

Tito Santana

Rick Martel

The Rockers

Rick Rude

Mr Perfect

Ted Dibiase

 

That has taken me about 15 seconds to throw those names- I can treble the amount if given a minute and then there will be no stopping me. The 80s was fucking great for wrestling, no better decade for WWF, NWA or pro wresling in general in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the question is based on the notion that WWF is pro-wrestling, you may have some valid points. As that isn't the case, the answer is very much no. What about; the British scene, NWA & U.S territories, Japan, Puerto Rico, Mexico etc. If there's a low period to compare with, the 80s isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...