Smackdown Six Era

[KrisZ]

[rzombie1988]

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.

 

I saw the Snitsky/HBK comparisons with my own eyes.

 

Never seen the hate for the Sd6 before here. I mean I guess if you hate good wrestling, it makes sense. Not sure what there is to critique as a whole unless you somehow hate Eddie, Benoit, Angle, Edge, Chavo and Rey. I'm gonna guess if you do, the Snitsky/HBK comparisons make more sense.

 

Don't even know what the second question is asking.

[Troy]

For the record, who hates SD! Six?

[Jimmy Redman]

Literally nobody in this thread.

[Loss]

I've learned recently not to defend matches on memory, so as it relates to the Smackdown 6, I won't do that. But I will say it's always important to consider context when understanding why something was so popular at the time. Paul Heyman booking Smackdown felt like a breath of fresh air compared to RAW, in which the Katie Vick angle was happening and HHH was just handed the title. They had been in desperation mode all year long with Hot Lesbian Action, NWO and Bischoff signing, return of Michaels, etc. And now, for the first time in a few years, matches are being given enough time to go through commercial breaks. Not only that, but they feature so many Internet darlings of the time. That's all without even getting into the match quality.

[Matt D]

Is there a single person in the note who doesn't realize why the era was so lionized at the time though?

[S.L.L.]

I saw the Snitsky/HBK comparisons with my own eyes.

It was said by Kerry Von Erich backstage at WrestleMania VIII, right before he debuted as the new Ultimate Warrior after Jim Hellwig had died.

 

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?

Actually, seeing as how the old stuff from the DVDVR board has been inaccessible for a while now, how recently/regularly did you read that thread, if at all?

 

Never seen the hate for the Sd6 before here. I mean I guess if you hate good wrestling, it makes sense. Not sure what there is to critique as a whole unless you somehow hate Eddie, Benoit, Angle, Edge, Chavo and Rey. I'm gonna guess if you do, the Snitsky/HBK comparisons make more sense.

I should be fair...there wasn't hate in the strictest sense of the term. But as others are pointing out, there isn't really hate now - just people saying it's not above criticism, and that it doesn't all hold up, and that you can do better, and that's been said by people since it happened.

 

Don't even know what the second question is asking.

You questioned people's ability to honestly criticize Angle because....

 

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

You presume people critical of the Smackdown Six are speaking from ignorance and therefore must have a sinister ulterior motive, but pulling out stuff like "they said Snitsky is better than Michaels!" and the general idea that SD!6 criticism is a totally new phenomenon reveals that you are speaking from ignorance in your criticisms of people who disagree with you, and while it doesn't necessarily mean you have a sinister ulterior motive, it does at least make you a massive hypocrite.

[rzombie1988]

I saw the Snitsky/HBK comparisons with my own eyes.

It was said by Kerry Von Erich backstage at WrestleMania VIII, right before he debuted as the new Ultimate Warrior after Jim Hellwig had died.

 

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?

Actually, seeing as how the old stuff from the DVDVR board has been inaccessible for a while now, how recently/regularly did you read that thread, if at all?

 

Never seen the hate for the Sd6 before here. I mean I guess if you hate good wrestling, it makes sense. Not sure what there is to critique as a whole unless you somehow hate Eddie, Benoit, Angle, Edge, Chavo and Rey. I'm gonna guess if you do, the Snitsky/HBK comparisons make more sense.

I should be fair...there wasn't hate in the strictest sense of the term. But as others are pointing out, there isn't really hate now - just people saying it's not above criticism, and that it doesn't all hold up, and that you can do better, and that's been said by people since it happened.

 

Don't even know what the second question is asking.

You questioned people's ability to honestly criticize Angle because....

 

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

You presume people critical of the Smackdown Six are speaking from ignorance and therefore must have a sinister ulterior motive, but pulling out stuff like "they said Snitsky is better than Michaels!" and the general idea that SD!6 criticism is a totally new phenomenon reveals that you are speaking from ignorance in your criticisms of people who disagree with you, and while it doesn't necessarily mean you have a sinister ulterior motive, it does at least make you a massive hypocrite.

 

Ah, just because you didn't see a post, it didn't exist? Got it. I wish I had that power with your post.

 

Which thread? The original thread is gone but like the infamous DVDVR "latina floppies and bacon strip" post, some things live forever, much like your insistence that Kerry became the Warrior

 

Not Snitsky, but I found an old post where people were talking about wrestlers better than HBK: http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/inde...c=10164.50;wap2 Where was your pal Kerry Von Smarkbait on this one?

 

Nothing is above criticism but I haven't seen WWE come close to that level since. They did some good stuff this year but they have most people appearing on 2-3 shows or more per week, as opposed to the one the SD6 had. I'd still put their best stuff against anything WWE has done and I think only selected DB/Cesaro/Shield matches would come close from this year.

 

There definitely are some issues here. I asked some of the people ripping on Angle earlier in the thread about how many recent Angle matches they had seen this year and Dylan was the only one to respond. Again, I have never seen criticism of the SD6 until this thread and I've been around way too long. Why don't you show me some criticism of the SD6 outside of this board? I think it would help your argument. We've had a few people claim that they didn't like Angle and that they don't like Benoit the performer because Benoit the person was bad, but that's about it. Nothing about how the SD6 sucks as a whole.

[Strummer]

Just a useless random thought. I remember there was a poster at TSM who hated Edge so much that he referred to them as the "Smackdown 5" and would not include Edge in any discussion. A bunch of posters followed suit for a while and then Edge got hurt in early 03. Yeah.

[rzombie1988]

Just a useless random thought. I remember there was a poster at TSM who hated Edge so much that he referred to them as the "Smackdown 5" and would not include Edge in any discussion. A bunch of posters followed suit for a while and then Edge got hurt in early 03. Yeah.

I can understand it, though I never hated him that much. It took me until the middle of his Rated R Superstar run to like him.

[Jimmy Redman]

There definitely are some issues here. I asked some of the people ripping on Angle earlier in the thread about how many recent Angle matches they had seen this year and Dylan was the only one to respond.

Why exactly would that even matter? I don't need to have seen that many 2013 Angle matches (think I saw maybe two or three for the record) to know what I think about Angle's work from 2002-03, and I don't think a comprehensive knowledge of Angle's 2013 work is really all that crucial to understanding or criticising his career on the whole. I've seen enough Angle in my lifetime to know what I think of his matches and his strengths and weaknesses as a worker.

[rzombie1988]

There definitely are some issues here. I asked some of the people ripping on Angle earlier in the thread about how many recent Angle matches they had seen this year and Dylan was the only one to respond.

Why exactly would that even matter? I don't need to have seen that many 2013 Angle matches (think I saw maybe two or three for the record) to know what I think about Angle's work from 2002-03, and I don't think a comprehensive knowledge of Angle's 2013 work is really all that crucial to understanding or criticising his career on the whole. I've seen enough Angle in my lifetime to know what I think of his matches and his strengths and weaknesses as a worker.

 

Well, Kane had a damn good 2012 that I wouldn't have believed if I didn't see it. I'm still not even sure if I believe it.

 

Angle was a completely different worker before he started working with Benoit.

 

1993 Ozaki was one of the best. 2013 Ozaki is one of the worst.

 

Daniel Bryan in my opinion was the best he ever was for a short time this summer.

 

We can make generalizations. but we can't trust they will be always correct. It's best to make conclusions on stuff we see regularly, though for most of us, it isn't possible.

[Jimmy Redman]

There definitely are some issues here. I asked some of the people ripping on Angle earlier in the thread about how many recent Angle matches they had seen this year and Dylan was the only one to respond.

Why exactly would that even matter? I don't need to have seen that many 2013 Angle matches (think I saw maybe two or three for the record) to know what I think about Angle's work from 2002-03, and I don't think a comprehensive knowledge of Angle's 2013 work is really all that crucial to understanding or criticising his career on the whole. I've seen enough Angle in my lifetime to know what I think of his matches and his strengths and weaknesses as a worker.

 

Well, Kane had a damn good 2012 that I wouldn't have believed if I didn't see it. I'm still not even sure if I believe it.

 

1993 Ozaki was really good. 2013 Ozaki was a contender for the worst wrestler of the year.

 

On the other hand, we had wrestlers in the past like Ray Stevens who were supposed to be superworkers, but we can't see the footage from his peak years to ever know.

 

I grant you that (although in this case, I'm pretty sure if Kurt Angle, of all people, had some crazy good year of matches, someone would have said something, and I haven't heard anything in that area) but at the same time, by this point in Angle's career, I don't think one really strong year is going to remarkably change my overall perception of him. There are 13 other years of his career that I've watched and torn my hair out over. Being able to add "hey, he had a pretty good 2013 though" to the end of it doesn't really change or negate what I see as his flaws as a worker, which span his entire career as a whole.

 

I'm with you on actually watching the footage, by all means, but at the same time, I don't think taking only a cursory glance at one year of a 14 year career means one can't form valid opinions about that career.

[rzombie1988]

There definitely are some issues here. I asked some of the people ripping on Angle earlier in the thread about how many recent Angle matches they had seen this year and Dylan was the only one to respond.

Why exactly would that even matter? I don't need to have seen that many 2013 Angle matches (think I saw maybe two or three for the record) to know what I think about Angle's work from 2002-03, and I don't think a comprehensive knowledge of Angle's 2013 work is really all that crucial to understanding or criticising his career on the whole. I've seen enough Angle in my lifetime to know what I think of his matches and his strengths and weaknesses as a worker.

 

Well, Kane had a damn good 2012 that I wouldn't have believed if I didn't see it. I'm still not even sure if I believe it.

 

1993 Ozaki was really good. 2013 Ozaki was a contender for the worst wrestler of the year.

 

On the other hand, we had wrestlers in the past like Ray Stevens who were supposed to be superworkers, but we can't see the footage from his peak years to ever know.

 

I grant you that (although in this case, I'm pretty sure if Kurt Angle, of all people, had some crazy good year of matches, someone would have said something, and I haven't heard anything in that area) but at the same time, by this point in Angle's career, I don't think one really strong year is going to remarkably change my overall perception of him. There are 13 other years of his career that I've watched and torn my hair out over. Being able to add "hey, he had a pretty good 2013 though" to the end of it doesn't really change or negate what I see as his flaws as a worker, which span his entire career as a whole.

 

I'm with you on actually watching the footage, by all means, but at the same time, I don't think taking only a cursory glance at one year of a 14 year career means one can't form valid opinions about that career.

 

I don't really blame you for basing your opinions off of what you've seen as a whole. I understand it.

 

I still can't believe Kane had such a great 2013 though. Never would have seen that coming.

[Jimmy Redman]

Shit, what would even be the pimped Angle matches of 2013? I can't really find much outside of the AJ and Roode matches. Is there more that nobody has been watching or has he not been very active/good this year?

 

Man, I worry about how easily I am goaded into watching Angle matches.

[rzombie1988]

Shit, what would even be the pimped Angle matches of 2013? I can't really find much outside of the AJ and Roode matches. Is there more that nobody has been watching or has he not been very active/good this year?

 

Man, I worry about how easily I am goaded into watching Angle matches.

I really liked his AJ match and his match with Joe. He did a lot of stuff with Ace's that occupied his whole year and kept him out of singles.

[Jimmy Redman]

Shit, what would even be the pimped Angle matches of 2013? I can't really find much outside of the AJ and Roode matches. Is there more that nobody has been watching or has he not been very active/good this year?

 

Man, I worry about how easily I am goaded into watching Angle matches.

I really liked his AJ match and his match with Joe. He did a lot of stuff with Ace's that occupied his whole year and kept him out of singles.

 

Yeah. The only ones I remember clearly were the cage match with Anderson in January (which was a piece of shit) and AJ at Slammiversary (which I found painfully mediocre, but moreso because of Emo AJ than anything Angle did). I'm sure I watched the Joe match but I can't remember anything about it.

[rzombie1988]

Shit, what would even be the pimped Angle matches of 2013? I can't really find much outside of the AJ and Roode matches. Is there more that nobody has been watching or has he not been very active/good this year?

 

Man, I worry about how easily I am goaded into watching Angle matches.

I really liked his AJ match and his match with Joe. He did a lot of stuff with Ace's that occupied his whole year and kept him out of singles.

 

Yeah. The only ones I remember clearly were the cage match with Anderson in January (which was a piece of shit) and AJ at Slammiversary (which I found painfully mediocre, but moreso because of Emo AJ than anything Angle did). I'm sure I watched the Joe match but I can't remember anything about it.

 

Didn't he also get suspended or something from TNA this year?

[S.L.L.]

Ah, just because you didn't see a post, it didn't exist? Got it. I wish I had that power with your post.

This is the part where I ask you to show me this post. If I sound disbelieving, it's because lots of people have claimed to have seen it in the past, and no one's ever provided any hard evidence. There has been many an opportunity to prove that it happened, and no one ever made good on it. Typical cryptozoology bullshit. Gimme some proof, and I'll take it seriously

 

Not Snitsky

And thus proves nothing. There were plenty of unremarkable/marginal guys who Schneider/TomK et al pointed to as being better than Michaels in that thread, but the one apologists point to is almost always Snitsky...who they didn't say was better than Michaels. Ever.

 

Where was your pal Kerry Von Smarkbait on this one?

Are you drunk?

 

Nothing is above criticism but I haven't seen WWE come close to that level since.

And if you have an opinion, then clearly everyone must share that opinion, unless they are just saying so to be an Anti-Meltzerite trying to look cool on the internet.

 

Or, stated honestly, it's above criticism.

 

Again, I have never seen criticism of the SD6 until this thread and I've been around way too long. Why don't you show me some criticism of the SD6 outside of this board? I think it would help your argument.

jdw to the white curtsey phone....The Other Arena guys were the ones on top of that at the time.

 

Outside of this board? I don't think anyone is trying to argue SD6 criticism is some kind of mainstream opinion...just an opinion that's not new to this niche.

 

"And I assume Resident Evil would tell you that Steiners v Heavenly Bodies was better because it was worked like proto-Smackdown Six with lots of meaningless moves to get pops."

-TomK, 8/24/2007

 

We've had a few people claim that they didn't like Angle and that they don't like Benoit the performer because Benoit the person was bad, but that's about it. Nothing about how the SD6 sucks as a whole.

Possibly because no one here has actually said they think it sucks as a whole, just that it may not have been this pinnacle of quality wrestling - even just within the confines of WWE - that some people claim it is.

[Jimmy Redman]

So anyway back to the topic, I've been watching the rest of the Angle-Benoit series.

 

24th October was pretty much a sprint version of their match. The opening rolling around lasted maybe a minute, the "heat" lasted maybe two, and then they went into the finishing stretch. I doubt the whole thing went 10 minutes, but of course they still found the time to hit a million Germans, including the flipping one. They worked Angle's top rope leap into the match in a better way here, since Angle ate the flipping German and then stayed down for Benoit's headbutt to create a solid nearfall, and then later on Benoit merely cuts him off with a forearm smash and tries to go up again. but Angle recovers and runs up. They also work in the foot-on-the-ropes bit from Unforgiven into this too, which was cool.

 

19th December was worked more like a traditional WWE match, starting off with headlocks and what have you and working a longer, more typical heat section. Angle had just turned heel(er) so at least it made sense for him to get heat on Benoit. I liked how Benoit rolled out of the Angle Slam to start his comeback, but there was a ridiculous German suplex exchange in this that I'm not sure whether I liked or hated, with Benoit hitting nine unanswered Germans, with two interruptions. At least Angle didn't pop up from them.

 

Now, the Rumble. It's still worth noting that whatever picture you have in your mind of what the first 5 minutes of a long Angle/Benoit match would look like...this isn't it. Punch, stomp, chop, punch, stomp. I'm not even saying that is a bad thing, but it is certainly a thing. This isn't the kind of thing I say often, but if you put the first half of Unforgiven onto the second half of the Rumble, you'd have a hell of a match. The other thing I want to say about the beginning is that there is zero drama concerning the Sharpshooter. Benoit tried to put it on once, Angle made the ropes, not acting any more concerned than if it was any other mat wrestling move (whoever claimed that he was showing fear of it is crazy), then a minute or so later, Benoit puts the Sharpshooter on, Angle struggles and makes it to the ropes. The end. It meant nothing to the match and it wasn't compelling or even drawn out much for drama. It just...happened.

 

I said there was no heat in my last review, and what I meant was that even if Angle was technically on offense for a certain amount of time without much reprieve, that doesn't necessarily make it feel like an actual heat segment. Seeing it now, it actually went on a bit longer than I remembered, but it was still just "Angle lays in a body scissors for a few minutes and does nothing" before Benoit makes his comeback (from what?) and to me that isn't really a heat segment. It came off more like a couple of restholds.

 

Everything after that, starting with Benoit's comeback, was pretty cool though. Like I said before, the second half of the match is at least exciting and world's better than the beginning. I know when I type this aloud I'm going to read how ridiculous it sounds, but there's some small comfort in seeing German suplex exchanges where the guys reverse after eating one suplex, instead of taking two or three and then somehow having the strength to reverse and hit two or three of their own. At least with just one you can sort of buy into the idea of "Ouch that hurt, I better reverse him NOW to make sure I don't eat any more of those." I still find arguments that go like "but at the time, we'd never seen the crossface reversed into the Ankle Lock and back again before!" to be utterly ridiculous given the last four months of Smackdown and the last three singles matches they had. But I understand that it was exciting. Benoit hitting the huge headbutt was a nice moment, but was also not milked nearly as much as I was expecting. Was this the first time Angle had used the grapevine finish? Because I did like that in a "I have to come up with something completely new to put away this unprecedented threat" way, and also in a logic sense because Benoit kept trying to kick his way out of the Ankle Lock.

 

I didn't dislike the Rumble as much as I did last time. I think that's the way it goes with a controversial match, at least for me. Watch it one time, see the flaws. Watch it the next time with negative thoughts about it, get pleasantly surprised by the positives. Watch it again with positive thoughts, and then notice all of those flaws again. And so on. I still don't think it's all that great a match, really. The first half meanders and isn't all that compelling. The second half is fun in an Angle, overkill way, which I can enjoy to a certain extent but also isn't particularly my kind of wrestling. Still don't see the argument for it being a psychological masterpiece.

 

In the end the point I would like to make is that there are PLENTY of great SD Six era matches that hold up very well, even if I don't think Angle/Benoit is one of them.

[rzombie1988]

Ah, just because you didn't see a post, it didn't exist? Got it. I wish I had that power with your post.

This is the part where I ask you to show me this post. If I sound disbelieving, it's because lots of people have claimed to have seen it in the past, and no one's ever provided any hard evidence. There has been many an opportunity to prove that it happened, and no one ever made good on it. Typical cryptozoology bullshit. Gimme some proof, and I'll take it seriously

 

Not Snitsky

And thus proves nothing. There were plenty of unremarkable/marginal guys who Schneider/TomK et al pointed to as being better than Michaels in that thread, but the one apologists point to is almost always Snitsky...who they didn't say was better than Michaels. Ever.

 

Where was your pal Kerry Von Smarkbait on this one?

Are you drunk?

 

Nothing is above criticism but I haven't seen WWE come close to that level since.

And if you have an opinion, then clearly everyone must share that opinion, unless they are just saying so to be an Anti-Meltzerite trying to look cool on the internet.

 

Or, stated honestly, it's above criticism.

 

Again, I have never seen criticism of the SD6 until this thread and I've been around way too long. Why don't you show me some criticism of the SD6 outside of this board? I think it would help your argument.

jdw to the white curtsey phone....The Other Arena guys were the ones on top of that at the time.

 

Outside of this board? I don't think anyone is trying to argue SD6 criticism is some kind of mainstream opinion...just an opinion that's not new to this niche.

 

"And I assume Resident Evil would tell you that Steiners v Heavenly Bodies was better because it was worked like proto-Smackdown Six with lots of meaningless moves to get pops."

-TomK, 8/24/2007

 

We've had a few people claim that they didn't like Angle and that they don't like Benoit the performer because Benoit the person was bad, but that's about it. Nothing about how the SD6 sucks as a whole.

Possibly because no one here has actually said they think it sucks as a whole, just that it may not have been this pinnacle of quality wrestling - even just within the confines of WWE - that some people claim it is.

 

- The thread is now gone from the internet, even after a wayback search. I saw Snitsky and you're not going to tell me I didn't. The source was perfectly fine.

 

- Not even gonna respond to the next point because you are trying to be cute and are putting words in my mouth.

 

- I asked for outside the board.

 

Bye now.

[S.L.L.]

- The thread is now gone from the internet, even after a wayback search. I saw Snitsky and you're not going to tell me I didn't. The source was perfectly fine.

What was the source?

 

- Not even gonna respond to the next point because you are trying to be cute and are putting words in my mouth.

Alright, let me put it to you this way: You say the SD6 aren't above criticism. OK...so what about the criticism here caused you to cry foul?

 

- I asked for outside the board.

You might find it, you might not, but I again ask what that would prove. No one is saying "the Smackdown Six weren't as great as we said at the time" was a mainstream view. Are you trying to prove that the PWO/Segunda Caida/DVDVR aesthetic is uncommon amongst wrestling fandom? I think we all knew that already.

[Matt D]

I was watching a Mike Masters vs King Parsons match from 1981 Portland just now and it's amazing how much I would have disliked it in 2002 and how much I liked it now. It was my first time seeing Masters and I thought he worked his muscleman gimmick very well both in the sort of offense he used and in his playing to the crowd. It was Masters' first time in front of the crowd and he really got over his gimmick well. It was mainly armwork based and they moved in and out of it well. Parsons' selling was mostly good. When he shrugs off the armwork during a hope spot, he REALLY shrugs it off instead of just ignoring it and by doing so he pops the crowd. There were some paralleled spots I liked including Full Nelson escapes. Parsons definitely has a charisma that I never gave him credit for before. And yeah, Masters did take one nice bump to the outside, but what was nice about it wasn't even the bump itself, but how it played into the early feeling out process at the start of the match.

 

It wasn't a great match or anything but it was definitely good. And it wasn't a workrate match at all. I would have been bored stiff in 02. My point is that people's opinions can change and develop over time and it's silly to think that just because we (as individuals or a group) were crazy over something in 2002 doesn't mean we can't come to feel differently about it later.

[Ryan Faulconer]

I was comparing the strong matches on a weekly basis from the Smackdown 6 period to now because it seems that eventually the law of diminishing returns is enforced and we just want something new an different. For some reason the comma doesn't work on my keyboard so that is quite a run-on sentence.

 

I was specifically but probably not focused on referring to the same group wrestling each other over and over again. The Smackdown 6 did have people saying that any booker (or committee of booking primates) could book the same great workers (and Edge and Chavito) into great matches. When I mentioned the Smackdown 6 I really meant those same 6 wrestlers that everyone associates with that moniker. I guess their equivalent sextet would be Bryan/Shield/Rhodes Bros. If the original SmackDown 6 had included BookDust and Christian/Jericho it would probably have ruled that much more. Sigh. The only time I can think of where they worked together was during a ladder match on RAW IIRC.

 

Where I come from (on the internet) is pretty much exclusively DVDVR/tOA/PWO/WKO centric. I started out reading SCOOPS/Rantsylvania/Netcop and began reading RSPW before it became RSPWM and then dropped off the face of the earth relatively speaking. I don't agree with a lot of the "canon" opinions that originally breathed life into the DVDVRs themselves and then the board itself but the matches discussed are where I started from once 1999 WWF really chased me away from believing "thou shall not have any other gods before Vince". I mean - I grew up watching all the wrestling that was on TV in the 1980s but eventually it always came back to the WWF. A lot of that has to do with the WWF's dominance of the sports networks here in Canada. A lot of that also has to do with the WWF's cyclical stumbling onto great things every now and then.

 

The general consensus in this section of the internet has changed dramatically over the last five or six years. I think part of it came as a result of companies like ROH and Dragon Gate hitting a critical and creative peak.. The death of Eddie Guerrero and Misawa also seemed like a "wake up" call to the internet wrestling fans. Pair that with the Benoit murders and Kurt Angle being released because they had pretty much had enough of him and we had a real sea change over the span of some small message boards online.

 

My original point was that debunking the SmackDown 6 happened long before (and somewhat during) all of that. There was a time before the tilde key was used either ironically or dismissively. Before terms like "movez" were coined and other words like "workrate" were used to refer things that actually weren't related to the definition of the word - people would get tired of good/great wrestling due to either dull repetition or familiarity.

 

1999 really was the very worst year of televised wrestling over the last twenty years or more. The PPVs were usually better but they weren't guaranteed like in previous years. I don't remember any good Austin/Undertaker matches after the SummerSlam 98 peak. Test/Shane WAS really a WWF classic smoke-and-mirrors match that they should study and copy from to this day. HHH/Rock were a pretty unsatisfying pairing outside of the ladder match the previous year. Edge & Christian vs. the Hardys were good matches in 1999 but on TV they were usually three minutes and/or shoehorned Michael Hayes to make them six mans.

 

WCW still usually had quite a few quality TV matches each week. They would spread across four different shows and aired at irregular but consistent syndicated hours. Like my original point though they often went unnoticed or were unremarkable because they had a consistency that even the staunchest fan of quality wrestling could dismiss unless they weren't in a diehard and hardcore fan frame of mind.

 

ECW on TNN was usually worth checking out due to the novelty of them being on a network viewable network. The Christmas and New Year's shows still give me the warm fuzzies that being a stubborn wrestling fan or pursuer of other niche entertainment can relate to.

[Matt D]

There's a lot to parse there, but I don't think anyone's tired of the current WWE output when it comes to televised matches. I am occasionally frustrated due to lack of time and three or four long tag matches that I want to watch a week while I'm watching everything else, but is there any real criticism against the matches right now? I think the most I see is "Well, it's pretty obvious that Cody really isn't as good as Dustin."