Wrestling consensuses you disagree with

[gmoney]

6 hours ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

.What constitutes "bad art"? 

 

 

[Hannibal Scorch]

2 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

That's the WWF narrative at play. WCW had a couple of year window where they were killing them everywhere. It's not wrong to say that WCW only cared about the TV numbers though.

WCW Nitro was never filmed in a high school gym, something WWE never seem to remind people of in those documentaries of the MNW.

WCW’s biggest issue was always exposure. After ITV dropped them, and San Francisco Toymakers didn’t try and sell their action figures, they seemed to disappear unless you found them on one of the German satellite channels. Whilst WWE always had toys, magazines, cards and TV presence. It’s why I think they never seemed as hot as they were in the US, here. 

[air_raid]

3 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

It's not wrong to say that WCW only cared about the TV numbers though.

As a Turner purchase/operation, WCW for much of its life was a lot closer to just being a TV show with very occasional live tours as opposed to the WWF which was a wrestling company that had TV.

[Snitsky's back acne]

5 hours ago, Chris B said:

What constitutes art?

Quite. Many theses have been written about that very question. 

[boshealecta]

I was always more into the theatrics and kicks punches from ott superheroes so I tend to not like Bret matches or any ‘classics’ which people talk about stealing the show. They just seem to long and bore me. I always used to fast forward SunmerSlam 91 vs Perfect

Based on that I loved the ending of Wrestlemania IX. We’d finally got Sky in September of 92 and Hogan wasn’t about by then, so I was sad I’d missed out on him being a regular feature. So when he returned I was over the moon and I’d been fed up of the long SummerSlam 92 main event vs Bulldog and Survivor Series vs Shawn. Also Bret vs Razor bored me. So to see Hogan finally back, lose his tag title match but then come back at the main event and beat Yoko for the title. I was so happy as a 9 year old kid. My hero had returned and things were back to how I wanted them.  

[Egg Shen]

On 8/14/2025 at 4:49 PM, gmoney said:

 

 

Fuck me, i'd recently managed to wipe that from my memory. Bastard.

[air_raid]

1 hour ago, boshealecta said:

I was always more into the theatrics and kicks punches from ott superheroes so I tend to not like Bret matches or any ‘classics’ which people talk about stealing the show. They just seem to long and bore me. I always used to fast forward SunmerSlam 91 vs Perfect

Based on that I loved the ending of Wrestlemania IX. 

Wish I hadn’t helped you about Mania VIII questions.

[Chico Torres]

I guess mine would be that I believe that if wrestling is to serve any purpose it’s overblown, low culture trash theatre with completely over the top characters, gimmicks, angles and promos. The stars should be ridiculous , colourful, otherworldly cartoon maniacs like Hulk Hogan, Macho Man, Ultimate Warrior, Andre the Giant etc. So where I disagree with the consensus is that I think the likes of Kevin Owens, AJ Styles, Sami Zayn, Daniel Bryan etc are the antithesis of what wrestling stars should be.

[garynysmon]

On 8/13/2025 at 3:45 PM, The Gaffer said:

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. 

Couldn’t agree more.

2000 felt very lacking to me at the time, which of course was without Austin for pretty much all of it. The McMahon-Helmsley era storyline was also dominating everything, not to mention that dreadful Wrestlemania without a single proper one on one match.

The WWF had definitely eaten itself at that point.

In order of preference I always felt that 97 was better than 98, which was better than 99 and so on.

As you said, 2000 was a more polished year but that’s what I explicitly DON’T want in my wrestling, and is why aspects of the WWE production nowadays are horrendous to watch.

I love going back to watch stuff like TNT episodes from 1984/85 which was pretty amateurish really, while the company was still struggling to find its feet. But just so much charm.

Ditto 97,98, 99 Raws, a vibe which I find more endearing than everything falling into place nicely and being too well produced.

I think wrestling as a medium always works best when there’s an element of chaos.

Edited August 19, 2025 by garynysmon

[garynysmon]

7 hours ago, boshealecta said:

I was always more into the theatrics and kicks punches from ott superheroes so I tend to not like Bret matches or any ‘classics’ which people talk about stealing the show. They just seem to long and bore me. I always used to fast forward SunmerSlam 91 vs Perfect

I’ve always appreciated a good wrestling bout, but usually feel that good long match after good long match is just too much and isn’t what I want out of my wrestling (hence why I was never an ROH or AEW fan really).

I’ve always liked a great match to be something that really stands out, like Summerslam 92, rather than something that’s routine as in today’s wrestling scene.

So I could happily watch Steamboat v Savage from WM 3, even as a kid, and love it for what it was. But I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that Superstars squash matches have always been perfect for me really.

An entrance, a superstar doing their signature spots, seeing their cool finisher and out of there in 2-3 mins. Rinse and repeat.

I even started watching WWE Speed last year and enjoyed them.

The number of PPV’s I’d just fast forward to match end through all the ‘boring wrestling bits’ happened more often that how much someone who claims to have been a ‘wrestling’ fan for 30+ years should admit to.

The temptation is still there now, meaning I’ll only end up watching shows in full if they’re live.

I’ve long come to the conclusion that I’ve always enjoyed all of the bullshit and hoopla surrounding the actual bouts, way more than most of the in-ring action itself.

Edited August 19, 2025 by garynysmon

[boshealecta]

On 8/14/2025 at 4:49 PM, gmoney said:

 

 

Never heard this before. I quite like it. 

[AshC]

13 hours ago, garynysmon said:

I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that Superstars squash matches have always been perfect for me really.

An entrance, a superstar doing their signature spots, seeing their cool finisher and out of there in 2-3 mins. Rinse and repeat.

With inset interviews, key angle recaps and an Event Centre, with promos to sell the house show matches. Best format of pro wrestling television there ever was, for my money. I imagine that's against the consensus in 2025. But fuck 2025. 

[herbie747]

I find Ric Flair matches boring. All of them. 

[air_raid]

9 hours ago, herbie747 said:

I find Ric Flair matches boring. All of them. 

I understand this, even if I don’t agree with it. He was very much a formula guy. Work the leg, Figure 4, babyface comeback.

People have this criticism of Bret because he had the same moves (or rather, pairs of moves) in all his comebacks, ignorant to the fact the structure of most of his big/most lauded matches was usually completely different.

[herbie747]

13 hours ago, air_raid said:

I understand this, even if I don’t agree with it. He was very much a formula guy. Work the leg, Figure 4, babyface comeback.

People have this criticism of Bret because he had the same moves (or rather, pairs of moves) in all his comebacks, ignorant to the fact the structure of most of his big/most lauded matches was usually completely different.

When I first saw Flair it was his WWF debut and he looked old, sort of flabby, and had hair like my aunt. His hair wasn't blonde - it was white. The opposite of the cool cartoon superheroes WWF had at the time. 

And as a 12-year-old WWF fan, I felt Mr. Perfect did everything better than Flair. Hennig was a better wrestler, cut better promos, had more charisma, more charm, was younger, cooler gimmick, looked in better shape, and had amazing vignettes. So when Flair arrived, to me he seemed like a poor man's Mr. Perfect. Just like Kerry Von Erich seemed like a poor man's Ultimate Warrior when he turned up, because he also had tassels and a great physique... but Kerry had no charisma and cut a promo like he was braindead. 

I also found the Flair flop akin to a comedy style - you know when he'd take 5 steps forward then flop on his face? That's comedy wrestling - the same OTT selling that Honky Tonk Man would do after getting an atomic drop. Same with Flair's OTT begging-off as someone was about to throw him off the top rope, which was another spot he always did. 

I love Royal Rumble 1992, but that was partially because of Heenan's commentary and it was a great story too. 

Edited August 20, 2025 by herbie747