Impact Cancelled

[Sidebottom]

Yeah, the hardcore / IC title switch is still something which baffles me, but has never really had a lot of ink dedicated to it (to the best of my knowledge). Maybe people have just repressed it.

[Grimmas]

Yeah, the hardcore / IC title switch is still something which baffles me, but has never really had a lot of ink dedicated to it (to the best of my knowledge). Maybe people have just repressed it.

That's always my go to example.

[fxnj]

Shows that were horrible aside from the stuff involving the main event guys was pretty much the norm since late 1997. It's not like they were hitting it out of the park back when the midcard was basically horrible gimmick tag-teams and juniors working 5 minute spot matches.

 

On another note, I'm also pretty sure late 1997 was when Russo started to get a lot of influence. I remember watching the episodes as they went up on Classics on Demand and noticing a very clear shift towards the edgy crash TV shit right around Badd Blood.

[artDDP]

I was such a huge WWF fan when I was 11/12 back in 1999 but man, that stuff has not aged well at all. I know that's not breaking news or anything, but I was shocked when I was re-watching a lot of the Raws from Classics on Demand last year. I know the 1999 PPV's were largely garbage because even as a kid I regretted all the ones I ordered, but the Raws are just terrible aside from Austin/Rock/Foley. I can actually pinpoint the jump the shark point... the episode before WrestleMania 15 when they decided to switch the IC and Hardcore Champions just to swerve everyone which in turn killed the feuds for each of those title pictures at WM 15. From that point on, the booking just got more and more illogical and things occurred at an increasingly breakneck pace. By the summer it was just horrendous with nothing being able settle and just one thing leading into another and blowing a month's+ worth of storylines into one show.

 

On some other boards I visit there's a few dozen posts a day calling 1999 the best year ever in the history of the WWF/WWE and clamoring for a return to the "Attitude Era". I know it's a small segment of the audience but it does have its fans.

 

I hated it then and I still hate it now.

 

Shows that were horrible aside from the stuff involving the main event guys was pretty much the norm since late 1997. It's not like they were hitting it out of the park back when the midcard was basically horrible gimmick tag-teams and juniors working 5 minute spot matches.

 

On another note, I'm also pretty sure late 1997 was when Russo started to get a lot of influence. I remember watching the episodes as they went up on Classics on Demand and noticing a very clear shift towards the edgy crash TV shit right around Badd Blood.

I think it was the In Your House immediately following WrestleMania XIII. It seemed to have a lot of Russo's staples compared to the PPVs just before it. The night after was the Austin-Bret Hart ambulance angle as well.

 

Wasn't this the same time we started getting more and more twenty-minute promos on "Raw"?

[Grimmas]

I don't know what is sadder to me, Bret Hart starting and popularizing the opening 20 minute promo or The Beatles creating music videos.

[fakeplastictrees]

Re: Attitude Era Praise

 

FWIW, I've noticed the most people singing the prase of 98-99 haven't watched that period since 98-99. They are picking out the memorable points and romantiziing the entire thing. I don't know ANYONE who has watch that period with fresh eyes (with the last five years) and rated it highly. Its always the opposite. So the next time someone starts praising 98-99 WWF, ask them- when was the last time they saw 98-99 WWF? Not just certain moments. Not just certain matches. I'm talking aout the episodes. I'm talking about WATCHING 98-99 WWF.

[Petey]

 

 

Shows that were horrible aside from the stuff involving the main event guys was pretty much the norm since late 1997. It's not like they were hitting it out of the park back when the midcard was basically horrible gimmick tag-teams and juniors working 5 minute spot matches.

 

On another note, I'm also pretty sure late 1997 was when Russo started to get a lot of influence. I remember watching the episodes as they went up on Classics on Demand and noticing a very clear shift towards the edgy crash TV shit right around Badd Blood.

I think it was the In Your House immediately following WrestleMania XIII. It seemed to have a lot of Russo's staples compared to the PPVs just before it. The night after was the Austin-Bret Hart ambulance angle as well.

 

Wasn't this the same time we started getting more and more twenty-minute promos on "Raw"?

 

Russo's always claimed that Vince made a conscious decision following the Raw from Germany to take the show in a different direction with Russo as a big part of it and it was within weeks to where he and Jim Cornette were writing the television. It wasn't until December of 1997 that Cornette left creative and that's when it became just Vince & Vince.

 

Re: Attitude Era Praise

 

FWIW, I've noticed the most people singing the prase of 98-99 haven't watched that period since 98-99. They are picking out the memorable points and romantiziing the entire thing. I don't know ANYONE who has watch that period with fresh eyes (with the last five years) and rated it highly. Its always the opposite. So the next time someone starts praising 98-99 WWF, ask them- when was the last time they saw 98-99 WWF? Not just certain moments. Not just certain matches. I'm talking aout the episodes. I'm talking about WATCHING 98-99 WWF.

I actually thought 1998 held up pretty well. It still had some Russo tropes but it wasn't nearly as egregious as 1999 and the stuff on top aged REALLY well, to me at least.

[BBscout]

Russo's always claimed that Vince made a conscious decision following the Raw from Germany to take the show in a different direction with Russo as a big part of it and it was within weeks to where he and Jim Cornette were writing the television. It wasn't until December of 1997 that Cornette left creative and that's when it became just Vince & Vince.

 

 

The week after the Germany RAW was when they had the entire new set, graphics, and intro. I wonder how long they were sitting on all that and waiting to debut it.

 

I was just watching the Owen-Davey matches and noticed in the reviews here that Loss is saying the April RAW from South Africa was the decider though.

[kjh]

Vince Russo buries Spike TV as a bad television partner for TNA (and doesn't understand basic probability theory): http://www.cagesideseats.com/tna-impact/2014/8/2/5963201/vince-russo-buries-spike-tv-as-a-bad-television-partner-for-tna

[sek69]

I don't know what is sadder to me, Bret Hart starting and popularizing the opening 20 minute promo or The Beatles creating music videos.

 

 

What's funny is in the back issues of the WON going up from 1997, Dave stated there was a feeling that Bret was accidentally-on-purpose going long on his promos to short HBK on his promo time. The one that closed Raw when Shawn kicked him out of his wheelchair had to be aired the following week because Bret went too long.

[El-P]

I actually thought 1998 held up pretty well. It still had some Russo tropes but it wasn't nearly as egregious as 1999 and the stuff on top aged REALLY well, to me at least.

 

 

The turning point toward Russo-iffic booking to me is SummerSlam 98. Up until then, the product is still holding together pretty decently. The fall is when it really began to crumble into shit. I said it a million time, my breaking point was the Royal Rumble 99. Totally broke my spirit of being a WWF fan, which I had been for ten years.

[Petey]

 

Russo's always claimed that Vince made a conscious decision following the Raw from Germany to take the show in a different direction with Russo as a big part of it and it was within weeks to where he and Jim Cornette were writing the television. It wasn't until December of 1997 that Cornette left creative and that's when it became just Vince & Vince.

 

 

The week after the Germany RAW was when they had the entire new set, graphics, and intro. I wonder how long they were sitting on all that and waiting to debut it.

 

I was just watching the Owen-Davey matches and noticed in the reviews here that Loss is saying the April RAW from South Africa was the decider though.

 

Loss might be right since Russo's timelines are notoriously inaccurate. However, I also remember him saying that after a Raw got a 1.9 (the Germany Raw), the next day Vince held a meeting with his inner circle and called in Russo which was when he held up an issue of the Raw magazine and said that was the direction the show needed to go into.

 

 

I actually thought 1998 held up pretty well. It still had some Russo tropes but it wasn't nearly as egregious as 1999 and the stuff on top aged REALLY well, to me at least.

 

 

The turning point toward Russo-iffic booking to me is SummerSlam 98. Up until then, the product is still holding together pretty decently. The fall is when it really began to crumble into shit. I said it a million time, my breaking point was the Royal Rumble 99. Totally broke my spirit of being a WWF fan, which I had been for ten years.

 

I actually loved the WWF Title booking through Survivor Series 98. I thought both Austin-Kane matches, Austin-Taker, the three way, Kane-Taker with Austin as referee and then Rock winning and becoming Corporate Champion was a great blend of coherent storytelling with the perfect amount of tweests without getting M.Night ridiculous.

[Sidebottom]

The South African Raw really is something rotten. If you haven't seen it in a while... Yeah you can probably go without doing so.

[Indikator]

Recently I helped a friend with the organisation of his magazine collection and I have to say the sudden change in the WWF magazines in 1997 was quite something. Such an overhaul is really needed, considering the stagnant mindset of both WWE and TNA.

[C.S.]

Re: Attitude Era Praise

 

FWIW, I've noticed the most people singing the prase of 98-99 haven't watched that period since 98-99. They are picking out the memorable points and romantiziing the entire thing. I don't know ANYONE who has watch that period with fresh eyes (with the last five years) and rated it highly. Its always the opposite. So the next time someone starts praising 98-99 WWF, ask them- when was the last time they saw 98-99 WWF? Not just certain moments. Not just certain matches. I'm talking aout the episodes. I'm talking about WATCHING 98-99 WWF.

 

Probably true, but the fact is, wrestling is best watched in the moment, as it's happening. The 98-99 stuff was successful in 98-99. It worked for that specific time period, era, and audience. That's what really matters. I'm not saying there isn't any merit rewatching old stuff, but the fact is, it cannot be judged as accurately because something is always lost in translation. Sure, you can still enjoy or not enjoy something from a bygone era, but no matter what, you will never experience it the same way as people who were there as it was happening. Certain references, nuances, and period-specific attributes will be lost on you.

[BigBadMick]

 

Re: Attitude Era Praise

 

FWIW, I've noticed the most people singing the prase of 98-99 haven't watched that period since 98-99. They are picking out the memorable points and romantiziing the entire thing. I don't know ANYONE who has watch that period with fresh eyes (with the last five years) and rated it highly. Its always the opposite. So the next time someone starts praising 98-99 WWF, ask them- when was the last time they saw 98-99 WWF? Not just certain moments. Not just certain matches. I'm talking aout the episodes. I'm talking about WATCHING 98-99 WWF.

 

Probably true, but the fact is, wrestling is best watched in the moment, as it's happening. The 98-99 stuff was successful in 98-99. It worked for that specific time period, era, and audience. That's what really matters. I'm not saying there isn't any merit rewatching old stuff, but the fact is, it cannot be judged as accurately because something is always lost in translation. Sure, you can still enjoy or not enjoy something from a bygone era, but no matter what, you will never experience it the same way as people who were there as it was happening. Certain references, nuances, and period-specific attributes will be lost on you.

 

I agree that 1998-99 WWF was best in 1998-99, but some of my favourite wrestling has been watched years after the fact.

 

Also, I thought WWE 2005-06 was pretty rubbish at the time, but have a stronger connection to it on a recent rewatch.

[BigBadMick]

I think it's also the fact that WWF in 1998-99 was part of the zeitgeist. It hasn't had that sort of mainstream popularity in a long, long time.

[sek69]

People also tend to have an attachment for TV shows that were around when they came of age. It's the same thing you see with shows that have been around forever like Saturday Night Live, the era you watched growing up was the best and the current era is crap. In both cases, most of the time when you try to pin someone down to describe why the current show is not good you don't get much better answers than "it's not what I grew up with".

[JaymeFuture]

WWE 2006 was a really bad year at the time.

 

Have been watching every Raw from 1998 this year to see how it holds up on a week-to-week basis. The main storytelling with Austin and Vince, along with the slow burn build to Taker Vs. Austin, is pretty good. Rest of the show is shaky at best, with the Brawl 4 All taking up way more time than I remembered, Jeff Jarrett still not over a lick, the demise of Vader in the WWF, and some real inconsistency with how midcard angles are pushed. Oddities debut with the Jackyl, appear one more time, then are gone for weeks and Jackyl hasn't been seen since. Steven Regal debuts against Droz (which I have NO recollection of), then doesn't appear again until the Real Man's Man months later. Edge debuts then does nothing for weeks. Droz gets an MTV style "Droz's World" video that promises something next week, but next week never comes.

 

Also, the four weeks or so of pre-taped TV after Summerslam 1998 is awful, fast forward material almost all the way.

[sek69]

Speaking of pre taped tv, I don't know if it's more noticeable because of HD or I just never paid attention back then, but it was pretty funny to see the obvious green screened crowd behind Vince and Lawler doing "live" intros to the taped Raws in 1995.

[Strummer]

RAW falls off a cliff after Summerslam 98. Yeah there is the zamboni angle and Vince firing Austin but the show was a shell of itself after that PPV

[BillThompson]

 

Re: Attitude Era Praise

 

FWIW, I've noticed the most people singing the prase of 98-99 haven't watched that period since 98-99. They are picking out the memorable points and romantiziing the entire thing. I don't know ANYONE who has watch that period with fresh eyes (with the last five years) and rated it highly. Its always the opposite. So the next time someone starts praising 98-99 WWF, ask them- when was the last time they saw 98-99 WWF? Not just certain moments. Not just certain matches. I'm talking aout the episodes. I'm talking about WATCHING 98-99 WWF.

 

Probably true, but the fact is, wrestling is best watched in the moment, as it's happening. The 98-99 stuff was successful in 98-99. It worked for that specific time period, era, and audience. That's what really matters. I'm not saying there isn't any merit rewatching old stuff, but the fact is, it cannot be judged as accurately because something is always lost in translation. Sure, you can still enjoy or not enjoy something from a bygone era, but no matter what, you will never experience it the same way as people who were there as it was happening. Certain references, nuances, and period-specific attributes will be lost on you.

 

 

Disagree with all of this. Great art, and by extension great wrestling, holds up no matter when it is watched. A lot of it even ages better and is best watched removed from the time period whence it originally took place. I'm not really knocking watching wrestling in the moment, but by no means do I think it's essential to watch wrestling in the moment. Yearbooks, 80s sets, projects, etc. have proven time and again that a person can be placed in the time frame of the year that a match/angle is taking place and get just as much, if not more, out of that match watching it years later.

[funkdoc]

Edge debuts then does nothing for weeks.

 

i think this was because he seriously injured the guy's neck in his debut match. wasn't that one of los boricuas?

 

i am also surprised you didn't mention how much TV/PPV time DOA was getting that year. definitely my anti-MVPs of 1998 WWF!

[The Chief]

 

I made this point at DVDVR but it bears repeating...

 

It sucks that TNA wrestlers will be looking for a job but from what I understand, there are only a small handful of guys making decent money (Angle, Bubba, etc) and those guys are already set. The guys constricted by TNA contracts but aren't able to make ends meet who have talent should be able to make as much on the Indys or somewhere. Those who can't find a gig are probably saving themselves from even more pain and suffering when they get old and probably shouldn't be in a ring anyway.

 

People make the argument that with TNA, at least there is another option for wrestlers. My argument has always been that bad wrestling shows hurt the long term viability of wrestling as a whole and that wrestling as an artform won't exist much longer anyway if bad companies are allowed to exist even though they are proven failures. It only serves to shrink the wrestling fanbase, not expand it.

Been meaning to reply, I agree with all of this. Supporting a terrible product is bad for the long term health of the industry.

 

If you go out in the wilderness and read what TNA fans are writing it's very telling. When you ask a TNA fan what they like about TNA, they often say "it's not WWE!" They tell you what it isn't, they can't tell you what it is. They can't say what they actually like about it.

 

It's not good for wrestling when the bar is set that low. Just existing and having a TV deal should not be enough for supporting a product. Stuff like this leads to the continuous employment of guys like Russo and that is never a good thing. You want to support a product that is not WWE? Go pump money into your local Indy. Tell your cable provider that you enjoy that Indy that's on at 3AM and how you think it deserves a better time slot. Supporting awful wrestling sends the message that it is ok to produce awful wrestling.

[JaymeFuture]

 

Edge debuts then does nothing for weeks.

 

i think this was because he seriously injured the guy's neck in his debut match. wasn't that one of los boricuas?

 

i am also surprised you didn't mention how much TV/PPV time DOA was getting that year. definitely my anti-MVPs of 1998 WWF!

 

 

Yeh, he injured Jose Estrada in his debut, but still. They show him in the crowd doing nothing, he gets weeks of build up, debuts, then instantly is on ice.

 

Funnily enough I was going to mention DOA. Every time that bloody motorcycle revving music kicked in I'd groan out loud. Though there is a somewhat amusing moment during an LOA/DOA backstage fight where this large metal trolley, extremely heavy looking, gets knocked out of place and begins to roll downhill, the cameraman running for his life as it threatens to smash into him at high speed.

 

Also, Steve Blackman gets better reactions than I remembered.