Smackdown Six Era

[Jimmy Redman]

Dave never elaborated on this to my knowledge, but I remember him saying once that the standing ovation was worked/started by plants.

I think Dave's point was that it wasn't an organic spontaneous reaction, but one that was expected and scripted by having Benoit look at the crowd with big eyes that screamed "please cheer for me" whilst he hobbled to the back like a wounded warrior.

 

To their credit though (Angle and Benoit's credit I mean), the crowd actually wanted to give it to him. I mean compare it to something like Hunter making the same puppy dog eyes and getting "Na na na na, hey hey, goodbye" from the crowd, because they didn't buy into the moment. Benoit earned the ovation, the crowd clearly loved the match.

[Dylan Waco]

All I've got to say about this is that in '99 there were people hoping that a 3 minute Brood vs. Hardy Boys match would contain workrate.

99 WWF/E was a cesspool. You can literally take any year in the history of the company and compare it favorably to that year.

 

Except for all the millions of people who were watching then that aren't watching now.

 

 

Pretty obvious this thread is not about business.

 

I've never heard anyone - I mean seriously no one ever - claim 99 was a good year for the WWF/E in the ring.

[ohtani's jacket]

All I've got to say about this is that in '99 there were people hoping that a 3 minute Brood vs. Hardy Boys match would contain workrate.

99 WWF/E was a cesspool. You can literally take any year in the history of the company and compare it favorably to that year.

 

You can literally take the Smackdown Six era and compare it favourably to just about any other era in the company.

[Dooley]

All I've got to say about this is that in '99 there were people hoping that a 3 minute Brood vs. Hardy Boys match would contain workrate.

99 WWF/E was a cesspool. You can literally take any year in the history of the company and compare it favorably to that year.

 

Except for all the millions of people who were watching then that aren't watching now.

 

 

Pretty obvious this thread is not about business.

 

I've never heard anyone - I mean seriously no one ever - claim 99 was a good year for the WWF/E in the ring.

 

If they were setting the high-water mark for business, it's pretty clear people liked what they were seeing.

 

It's an angry smark myth there were no good matches in 99 WWF. It wasn't the main focus obviously, but you still had things like the Rock-Foley feud, the Austin-Taker feud, Rock-Austin on back to back PPV's, Austin-Trips at No Mercy, E&C vs Hardys, and Test-Shane was perhaps the most surprisingly good match of that year. That's just off the top of my head. Sure there were lots of 3 minute Raw matches but it's not like there wasn't good stuff as well.

[PeteF3]

I thought 2000 was the high water mark for business.

 

Where specifically are these claims that there were "no good matches" in the '99 WWF? That the year wasn't a 100% complete waste of time doesn't mean that it wasn't a bad year work-wise.

[Grimmas]

In 1998 we had a large group of friends over to watch every ppv. In 1999, they only came over for the big 4. In 2000, they all came over for every show.

[NintendoLogic]

So what's the 1999 WWF MOTY? I remember Rock/Austin from Backlash holding up OK the last time I watched it.

[Dylan Waco]

All I've got to say about this is that in '99 there were people hoping that a 3 minute Brood vs. Hardy Boys match would contain workrate.

99 WWF/E was a cesspool. You can literally take any year in the history of the company and compare it favorably to that year.

 

You can literally take the Smackdown Six era and compare it favourably to just about any other era in the company.

 

Then do that and don't compare it to the widely recognized low point.

 

I liked the SD Six era at the time, especially in comparison to RAW at the time. Haven't watched a bunch of it in years. My favorite period of SD was probably 06 with the first big Henry heel run, Rey, Regal, Benoit, Finlay, Matt Hardy, Booker, JBL, a lot of fun tag matches, et. But that is by no means an argument against the SD Six period.

[Dylan Waco]

All I've got to say about this is that in '99 there were people hoping that a 3 minute Brood vs. Hardy Boys match would contain workrate.

99 WWF/E was a cesspool. You can literally take any year in the history of the company and compare it favorably to that year.

 

Except for all the millions of people who were watching then that aren't watching now.

 

 

Pretty obvious this thread is not about business.

 

I've never heard anyone - I mean seriously no one ever - claim 99 was a good year for the WWF/E in the ring.

 

If they were setting the high-water mark for business, it's pretty clear people liked what they were seeing.

 

It's an angry smark myth there were no good matches in 99 WWF. It wasn't the main focus obviously, but you still had things like the Rock-Foley feud, the Austin-Taker feud, Rock-Austin on back to back PPV's, Austin-Trips at No Mercy, E&C vs Hardys, and Test-Shane was perhaps the most surprisingly good match of that year. That's just off the top of my head. Sure there were lots of 3 minute Raw matches but it's not like there wasn't good stuff as well.

 

People like a lot of things that I wouldn't consider "good."

 

There is good stuff in just about any promotion if you look hard enough. The fact that a few good matches can be pointed to, doesn't tell me much.

[Jimmy Redman]

For whoever made the SD Six vs 2013 point that started the thread, I think it is actually a really good comparison to make, and will be interesting to revisit years down the line when we're more removed from the current stuff. Both are periods with a heavy emphasis on tag team wrestling and having a laundry list of long workrate matches on TV. The current era is just not as self-contained as the SD Six was, because then they were six guys all feuding with one another, and now we have a bunch of guys having matches with everyone on earth, even though there are frequently repeated combinations. To me you have to include everyone from the Shield, Bryan, Cesaro, the Rhodes bros and the Usos at the absolute minimum, and they all feud with and have had the relevant matches with very different people.

[rzombie1988]

For whoever made the SD Six vs 2013 point that started the thread, I think it is actually a really good comparison to make, and will be interesting to revisit years down the line when we're more removed from the current stuff. Both are periods with a heavy emphasis on tag team wrestling and having a laundry list of long workrate matches on TV. The current era is just not as self-contained as the SD Six was, because then they were six guys all feuding with one another, and now we have a bunch of guys having matches with everyone on earth, even though there are frequently repeated combinations. To me you have to include everyone from the Shield, Bryan, Cesaro, the Rhodes bros and the Usos at the absolute minimum, and they all feud with and have had the relevant matches with very different people.

That era of SD had more than 6 guys. As I mentioned, I always considered Brock the real sixth guy. Show was also good, A-Train was having his best matches of his career at that point, Matt Hardy was entertaining with the 2.0 stuff plus we got the goods from Tajiri and others. Take out the Mr. America and Dawn Marie stuff and it would have been even better.

 

The thing is with the current era is that the good stuff is really stretched out amongst the various shows, while the SD6 had SD and little else. It's not really fair as The Shield sometimes has appeared almost 4 times in one week with Raw, SD, NXT and Main Event at one point. The Shield also has the extra hour of Raw to play with.

[ohtani's jacket]

Then do that and don't compare it to the widely recognized low point.

That would probably make sense if it didn't follow directly after said low point.

[Dylan Waco]

Then do that and don't compare it to the widely recognized low point.

That would probably make sense if it didn't follow directly after said low point.

 

Maybe you disagree, but I thought the company bottomed out from an in ring perspective in 99 and got progressively better in 00, 01 and 02

[NintendoLogic]

2001 is one of the best years in company history from an in-ring standpoint. In fact, you could argue that the Smackdown Six era represented a step backward from what they were doing that year.

[goodhelmet]

2002 was off to a rough start after Mania. Questionable booking, bad main events, lame stories... the SD Six seemed like a breath of fresh air at the time. I was really engaged in the product in 2001 (not surprisingly when HHH was out for 2/3 of the year). Not so much in 2002.

[tim]

WWE started caring about putting on good matches in 2000 and 2001 but they weren't "workrate" matches like the Smackdown six was. This stuff is hard to properly define but I'm sure everyone knows what that means. Think of the pimped matches from WWE 2000 and 2001, you have the TLC stuff, gimmick matches like Trips/Jericho and the 3 stages of hell (to what extent any of this holds up, of course, is up for question), and story/atmosphere-driven stuff like Rock/Austin and Austin/Angle(which I think is a legit great match anyway). That stuffs a lot different from what was going on with the Smackdown six which is something that appealed more to smarky sensibilities of what good working is.

[ohtani's jacket]

I don't think it's a matter of pimped matches but consistently good week to week TV matches.

[Jimmy Redman]

For whoever made the SD Six vs 2013 point that started the thread, I think it is actually a really good comparison to make, and will be interesting to revisit years down the line when we're more removed from the current stuff. Both are periods with a heavy emphasis on tag team wrestling and having a laundry list of long workrate matches on TV. The current era is just not as self-contained as the SD Six was, because then they were six guys all feuding with one another, and now we have a bunch of guys having matches with everyone on earth, even though there are frequently repeated combinations. To me you have to include everyone from the Shield, Bryan, Cesaro, the Rhodes bros and the Usos at the absolute minimum, and they all feud with and have had the relevant matches with very different people.

That era of SD had more than 6 guys. As I mentioned, I always considered Brock the real sixth guy. Show was also good, A-Train was having his best matches of his career at that point, Matt Hardy was entertaining with the 2.0 stuff plus we got the goods from Tajiri and others. Take out the Mr. America and Dawn Marie stuff and it would have been even better.

 

I'm not saying that there weren't others involved, but to a lesser degree. The three SD Six teams were all feuding with each other at the time, which meant their matches were pretty much always with each other in some form. If you look at matches from the time, it's usually SD Six guy(s) vs SD Six guy(s), especially during that October-November tag title period. Of course there are others involved peripherally like Brock, Show, Train, Tajiri, Kidman, Cena, Matt. But those guys had maybe a couple of matches with the relevant guys, and were otherwise doing their own thing - Brock vs Taker then Show, Tajiri and co. in the cruiser division, Cena becoming rapper Cena, etc. Not that they weren't also having good matches at the time, but they were often separate from the "SD Six" guys as they've come to be known.

 

With 2013, it's hard to nail down who exactly the "guys" would be, and even if you did, you're still talking about matches involving a wide range of guys. For the easiest example, off the top of my head the Shield have had multiple matches with Cena, Bryan, Kane, Ryback, Sheamus, Orton, Kofi, the Usos, Christian, Henry, Show, Dolph, PTP, Cody, Goldust, Rey, Punk. Not even including guys who may have had a random match with them at some point. Ad then do that for everyone in the conversation like Bryan, Cesaro, and so on. Once you look into it you're looking at a majority of the whole WWE roster, as opposed to maybe half of the Smackdown-exclusive roster of 2002, if you get me.

[NintendoLogic]

I don't think it's a matter of pimped matches but consistently good week to week TV matches.

There was plenty of that in 2001 too. To take two examples I came across recently, the Austin/Regal strap match and the Rock/Jericho vs. Austin/Angle tag match from the Smackdown right before Survivor Series would stand out as strong matches in any year. I haven't really seen either match pimped much, which leads me to believe that there are plenty of other hidden gems from that year.

[Dylan Waco]

2001 is one of the best years in company history from an in-ring standpoint. In fact, you could argue that the Smackdown Six era represented a step backward from what they were doing that year.

I actually don't disagree with this, but I don't feel strongly about it either way.

 

What hurts 02 a lot for me is that aside from Christian/Jericho and BookDust, I can't think of anything on Raw from the year that I enjoyed. I have no doubt that there was other stuff, but nothing jumps off the page. In a sense the "SD Six" era became so iconic with hardcore fans because it was something distinct and different from the RAW brand, in a way that catered directly to many of our interests.

[S.L.L.]

Again, I've never seen hate for the SD6 until this thread. Even if you didn't like some of them for whatever oversmarked out reason, you still had Brock, Hardy, Show, Taijiri and others mixing with them to put on good performances.

There was SD6 hate while it was happening, and there's been growing criticism for it ever since.

 

Pretty sure most of the people who rip on him haven't even watched him regularly for years, if ever.

People's criticisms aren't valid if they haven't watched someone recently/regularly if ever, but criticisms of those criticisms are valid if you haven't read them recently/regularly if ever?

 

Reminds me a lot of the infamous HBK DVDVR thread where people were saying Snitsky was a better worker

You mean the one that never actually said said Snitsky was better than Michaels, but a lot of Michaels apologists claim that it did because it was easier than defending him on his merits? You realize this effectively gives you away as either a liar, or as someone who never actually read that thread. In which case...people's criticisms aren't valid if they haven't watched someone recently/regularly if ever, but criticisms of those criticisms are valid if you haven't read them recently/regularly if ever?

 

Have a little consistency, man.

[Loss]

I want to provide an opinion, but I don't really understand what is being debated.

[Troy]

Anyone who "hates" the SD! Six should watch the Death of WCW. I bet there'd be a newfound appreciation then. I can't imagine anyone hating them. Sure you may not have liked some things but to hate them? Crazy

[Matt D]

I want to provide an opinion, but I don't really understand what is being debated.

It's that the Smackdown Six era is a holy, sacred thing and the matches therein cannot be argued against years after the fact without you being either anti-meltzerianor a reactionary smark who just wants to cause a stir because of how bad things were in 1999 and because it was almost universally loved at the time.

 

Or something.

[goodhelmet]

Anyone who "hates" the SD! Six should watch the Death of WCW. I bet there'd be a newfound appreciation then. I can't imagine anyone hating them. Sure you may not have liked some things but to hate them? Crazy

I don't think anyone hates the SD6. The key in re-examining the era is to see if the matches hold up. Someone else asked if they were as good as the matches we are getting today on free TV.