Wrestling consensuses you disagree with

[AshC]

I always hear that the nWo was diluted when they started adding loads of members. And I know what people are getting at, much of the top star power was with the first three. But I genuinely think it helped make the group the phenomenon it was, a factor that made it more than a wrestling stable. Those Nitros where the ring is just full of guys for your nWo promo segments. The manic, multi-man run-ins. The sense of an entire company being at threat, something augmented by the nWo having non-wrestling members as well. I think it all helped, rather than hindered, the original nWo's presentation and its effectiveness.

What general consensuses are there in pro wrestling that you don't agree with?

[FLips]

That Kane has never had a good match. Yeah it’s the old “wrestling is subjective” thing and yeah he’s never put on a Meltzer 5 star classic, but him vs Undertaker at Wrestlemania 14 is a great bit of business, and the Brothers of Destruction were over as rover and them vs The Two Man Power Trip was the business. The Triple Threat Hardcore match at Mania 17 is excellent too.

Absolutely he’s done a load of shit, but his 1998-2003 masked era had some great stuff, and his later unmasked run while mostly rubbish had some decent tags and 6 mans with the likes of The Shield, and a good match with Daniel Bryan. Even his match against Taker at WM20 is up there for me.

Edited August 13, 2025 by FLips

[tiger_rick]

1 minute ago, FLips said:

the Brothers of Destruction were over as rover and them vs The Two Man Power Trip was the business. 

Lost me here. They were rubbish together by this point. Got worse throughout the summer. The consensus that Kronik were shit and the reason that the SummerSlam match was balls might be a good contender for the thread. Taker and Kane were boring, selfish and had a massively over-inflated opinion of themselves.

17 minutes ago, AshC said:

I always hear that the nWo was diluted when they started adding loads of members. And I know what people are getting at, much of the top star power was with the first three. But I genuinely think it helped make the group the phenomenon it was, a factor that made it more than a wrestling stable. Those Nitros where the ring is just full of guys for your nWo promo segments. The manic, multi-man run-ins. The sense of an entire company being at threat, something augmented by the nWo having non-wrestling members as well. I think it all helped, rather than hindered, the original nWo's presentation and its effectiveness.

I think the success of the group suggests this isn't true. The end of every Nitro forever being a DQ and an nWo beatdown and then there never being an end to the group or a commitment to post-nWo was what ultimately killed WCW. Them never having a second good idea and every passing month the committed outgoings becoming a bigger and bigger chunk of revenue just continued to escalate their problems.

21 minutes ago, AshC said:

What general consensuses are there in pro wrestling that you don't agree with?

Probably most of them! Almost every thing you ever see about how wrestling should be is a nonsense. Wrestling can be anything. All sorts of shit that shouldn't work does. There's no handbook as to how it should be, no matter what a Jim Cornette says. That's why it's so interesting. Otherwise the Ultimate Warrior and Goldberg would never have been stars. Lex Luger would have been as big as Hulk Hogan. Or see the Undertaker vs. Kane post yesterday.

I would throw in the Invasion angle. It's almost become concensus now that you couldn't have brought in the biggest stars to make the angle the level that it should have been. As if they couldn't afford it at a time when they'd happily lose hundreds of millions on restaurants and football leagues. Or they couldn't do it because Vince couldn't stand up to muppets like Taker & Kane over wages. Or as if the Invasion PPV buyrate didn't justify it. Vince didn't have the balls to do it properly. For such a visionary, he was blind there.

[Merzbow]

5 minutes ago, tiger_rick said:

The consensus that Kronik were shit and the reason that the SummerSlam match was balls might be a good contender for the thread. Taker and Kane were boring, selfish and had a massively over-inflated opinion of themselves.

Yeah Kronik had already proven infront of albeit smaller crowds that they weren't shit, it could and should have been a great bit of meat slapping meat match but Kane and 'Taker didn't want to sell.

[FLips]

To be frank I was 11 years old when that match happened and couldn’t care less about backstage politics or who Kronik were. The point is it was Kane and The Undertaker and that was a badass team to an 11 year old.

I said they were over (they were) and that I enjoyed their feud with Austin and HHH. I didn’t mention Kronik at all.

[tiger_rick]

11 minutes ago, FLips said:

I said they were over (they were) and that I enjoyed their feud with Austin and HHH. I didn’t mention Kronik at all.

I know, I did. Thought that's how conversation worked!

[The Gaffer]

I was a year younger than @FLips and I can confirm me and everyone else in the hood were dying to see 'Taker & Kane beat the piss out of Triple H and Austin at Backlash. The business was so hot at the time that it could have - and did - fall off a cliff and still come off as hot.

The one that immediately springs to mind for me is the year 2000 being the sort of official 'best' year of the Attitude Era once they'd done away with a lot of the low brow Vince Russo stuff and had workrate guys replace hired goons up and down the card. 

All logic dictates that the product was more well rounded and tightly written: The roster was better, the in ring quality came on leaps and bounds, the TVs had a far more endearing mix of soap opera, stakes and light heartedness and there was significantly less "No, I'm watching porn I swear!" moments. 

I just never liked it as much. The feeling - that uncanny, atmospheric, "Should I be watching this?" momentum - just doesn't hit the same for me. It's like they've settled down, worked things out, refined the cast and production and just...delivered. 

Whilst I still think it was the most entertaining, memorable time I've had as a fan, I've cooled in all the obvious sorts of places on the Attitude Era. But if I want to go back I'm still taking that often dingy, screw loose, warts and all vibe of 98 and even 99 over 2000. 

[Snitsky's back acne]

"Wrestling is art".

Nah, mate. It's not. 

[Hannibal Scorch]

7 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

"Wrestling is art".

Nah, mate. It's not. 

Nah, it is.

[tiger_rick]

2 minutes ago, The Gaffer said:

I was a year younger than @FLips and I can confirm me and everyone else in the hood were dying to see 'Taker & Kane beat the piss out of Triple H and Austin at Backlash. The business was so hot at the time that it could have - and did - fall off a cliff and still come off as hot.

The one that immediately springs to mind for me is the year 2000 being the sort of official 'best' year of the Attitude Era once they'd done away with a lot of the low brow Vince Russo stuff and had workrate guys replace hired goons up and down the card. 

All logic dictates that the product was more well rounded and tightly written: The roster was better, the in ring quality came on leaps and bounds, the TVs had a far more endearing mix of soap opera, stakes and light heartedness and there was significantly less "No, I'm watching porn I swear!" moments. 

I just never liked it as much. The feeling - that uncanny, atmospheric, "Should I be watching this?" momentum - just doesn't hit the same for me. It's like they've settled down, worked things out, refined the cast and production and just...delivered. 

Whilst I still think it was the most entertaining, memorable time I've had as a fan, I've cooled in all the obvious sorts of places on the Attitude Era. But if I want to go back I'm still taking that often dingy, screw loose, warts and all vibe of 98 and even 99 over 2000. 

Good stuff. I think I agree and disagree. Most comments about 2000 seem to forget that it almost fell off a cliff after SummerSlam. Austin coming back is a downturn but generally, the writing wasn't as good and quite a few things had stopped being novel. That said, I think the first half of 2000 is rightly lauded as a time when the attitude era characters and, well, attitude, combined with the emergence of some really good wrestlers and it created shows that really did have something for everyone. It wasn't perfect but nothing ever has been.

A lot of 1999 really is fucking rubbish. Is that a consensus? If it is, then it's the opposite of this thread, because it's true. The revisionist stuff you used to hear about the attitude era being over-rated is garbage though. 1998 was a phenomenal time. I re-watched a lot of it when SCG were doing their Monday Night Wars shows and it holds up. Doesn't need great matches, there's just magic in the air.

[gmoney]

14 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Nah, it is.

It is, but the bar for art is exceptionally low. Something being art doesn't automatically make it good, interesting or worth much note in the grand scheme of things. 

[Cannibal Man]

yeah if it's art it's a step below John Wayne Gacy's paintings

Edited August 13, 2025 by Cannibal Man

[SuperBacon]

It's not art. It's cinema.

[FUM]

51 minutes ago, tiger_rick said:

I would throw in the Invasion angle. It's almost become concensus now that you couldn't have brought in the biggest stars to make the angle the level that it should have been. As if they couldn't afford it at a time when they'd happily lose hundreds of millions on restaurants and football leagues. Or they couldn't do it because Vince couldn't stand up to muppets like Taker & Kane over wages. Or as if the Invasion PPV buyrate didn't justify it. Vince didn't have the balls to do it properly. For such a visionary, he was blind there.

I would throw the Invasion angle being crap in as a whole as a consensus I don’t agree with. I loved it, still do, watch shows back from 2001 all the time.

[HarmonicGenerator]

Consensus: Steve Austin’s heel run was terrible.

I never enjoyed him more than his heel run. I didn’t like Babyface Austin at any point, but now you were supposed to boo him? I was on board with his guitar playing, Spike Dudley beating, watch listening ways.