Better in ring decade 80s WWF or 90s WWF

[elliott]

I haven't thought much about this yet but 10 years ago I would have laughed at this and said 90s WWF, but now I'm not so sure.

The 80s has:
Slaughter's great run from 80-84, plenty of very good-great Backlund title matches, Ken Patea''s 1980, Greg Valentine vs Tito, Savage vs Tito, Savage vs Steamboat, Hogan has a ton of good-very good matches, Andre is a God, Savage is at his peak, Piper is awesome in 80s WWF, Terry goddamn Funk comes in for a good run. While they might have stopped having 20+ minute classics after a certain point, there are still a ton of awesome sprints and brawls that are worth your time in 80s WWF. It wasn't the dead in ring promotion you'd hear it talked about in the past. 

I'll have to think more about it. 

[joeg]

I don't think the bad rap 80s WWF gets is fair but I do think WWF in ring action peaked in the late 90s. If I were to pick my 10 favorite WWF matches, most would be in the 90s with Bret Hart, Mick Foley, and Austin. I can't think of anything in 80s WWF that's on the level of Mindgames 96 or the Austin vs Bret matches or the Bret vs Owen matches. 

[MoS]

I think the top end matches of the 90s were better, but the 80s had a lot more depth. Actually, that wouldn't be exactly correct, since they ran a ton more cards, but the bigger roster, more cards, and the influx of Crockett and Calgary talent means there are so many fun, good matches sprinkled throughout the cards in the 80s, on the home videos, in the arena footage from MSG, Spectrum, Boston and Maple Gardens, etc. What helps is that angles and wrestlers were hotter in the 80s than most of the 90s and therefore you have much hotter crowds, which makes for a better viewing experience than some of the awful crowds I have sat through while watching 90s WWF. 

In the 90s they still had their Calgary guys and kept getting good talent throughout, but they didn't have as many good workers as they did in the 80s, and thus they didn't have the volume of good matches that they did in the 80s. I would argue that didn't happen until 2000.

[sek69]

I think the worst of the 80s was miles ahead of the worst of the 90s too. Most of the "bad" 80s matches were inoffensive short ones with roided up monsters. Most of the "bad" 90s matches tend to involve people who were either under-trained or otherwise had no business being in a match. 

[Dav'oh]

1980s for me. The "Territory System" produced better workers than the "Death of the Territories System" (go figure...). Guys who were so well-versed in the basics, they could put on great matches using only the basics. I'd go as far as to say the 1980s had "smarter" workers, too - e.g it was the 90s when you could start to fill a bingo card with the names of wrestlers "who will be in a wheelchair by the time they're 40" (although people were probably saying that about Funk or Race in the 70s, I don't know, but I don't think it became prevalent until later).

[NintendoLogic]

7 hours ago, sek69 said:

I think the worst of the 80s was miles ahead of the worst of the 90s too. Most of the "bad" 80s matches were inoffensive short ones with roided up monsters. Most of the "bad" 90s matches tend to involve people who were either under-trained or otherwise had no business being in a match. 

Those roided up monsters aren't so inoffensive when they're putting the fans in danger. There's a match between Ted Arcidi and Tony Atlas where they're so blown up that they crush a kid's legs while fighting in the stands.

3 hours ago, Dav'oh said:

1980s for me. The "Territory System" produced better workers than the "Death of the Territories System" (go figure...). Guys who were so well-versed in the basics, they could put on great matches using only the basics. I'd go as far as to say the 1980s had "smarter" workers, too - e.g it was the 90s when you could start to fill a bingo card with the names of wrestlers "who will be in a wheelchair by the time they're 40" (although people were probably saying that about Funk or Race in the 70s, I don't know, but I don't think it became prevalent until later).

I'll take being in a wheelchair at the age of 40 over dying of a heart attack at the same age.

[fxnj]

Always been a fan of 80's WWF. The cool thing about it is you can pop in pretty much any random house show and you'll find an undercard match that surprises you in how good it is, and a lot of the Hogan main events hold up better than you'd expect as mentioned. The diversity in workers and the overall progression of the promotion is awesome with how it starts off as a NE territory with Backlund in the beginning, you have Hogan and big name territory guys in the middle, and then the future 90's stars starting to leave an impact towards the end. 90's has high highs, but most of the high-end stuff is centered around Bret or Shawn, and there's definitely a shift towards guys saving things for the big shows in the latter half of the decade.

[Dav'oh]

55 minutes ago, NintendoLogic said:

I'll take being in a wheelchair at the age of 40 over dying of a heart attack at the same age.

I'll see you that, and raise you, "I'd rather die from Belushi-ing myself than have my wife wipe my arse/empty my colostomy bag for decades 'cos I Hayabusa'd myself".

Anyway, I said they were smarter workers, not smarter drug-abusers...

[fxnj]

The health consequences aside, there's definitely a perverse novelty for me in seeing jacked up oafs like Muraco and Dino Bravo stumbling around the ring that allows me to forgive some of the shortcomings of their work. I'll still admit, though, that 80's has its fair share of stuff that can be hard to sit through, like those long Ivan Putski matches or the disappointing Rude/Roberts feud.

[sek69]

7 hours ago, NintendoLogic said:

Those roided up monsters aren't so inoffensive when they're putting the fans in danger. There's a match between Ted Arcidi and Tony Atlas where they're so blown up that they crush a kid's legs while fighting in the stands.

How common was that though? The most danger a fan would normally face in the 80s would be falling asleep during a long resthold sequence and spilling their beer. 

Also a point for the 80s was that wins and losses mattered so you'd see crowds go crazy for their favorites winning by DQ or countout because a win's a win.

[elliott]

I think the high end stuff actually compares pretty well. Probably the top two feuds of the decades:

Slaughter/Sheik vs Bret/Austin

Greg/Tito vs Bret/Owen

Looking a little deeper...

Savage/Steamboat vs Savage/Warrior

Slaughter/Backlund vs HBK/Taker

Tito/Savage vs Savage/Flair

Backlund/Patera vs Bret/Hennig

Hogan/Piper vs Austin/Foley

I feel like I really keep going for the 80s...Bruno vs Larry Z, Slaughter vs Patterson, Hogan vs Bossman, HOgan vs Savage, Hogan vs Orndorff, Backlund vs Valentine, Rockers vs Brainbusters, etc etc 

[SirEdger]

7 hours ago, fxnj said:

The health consequences aside, there's definitely a perverse novelty for me in seeing jacked up oafs like Muraco and Dino Bravo stumbling around the ring that allows me to forgive some of the shortcomings of their work. I'll still admit, though, that 80's has its fair share of stuff that can be hard to sit through, like those long Ivan Putski matches or the disappointing Rude/Roberts feud.

To be fair, Dino Bravo was nowhere near as good in the ring by the time he joined WWF than he was during his prime in the Montreal territory. But I get your point here.

[Laz]

90s had peak Bret, peak Austin, peak HBK, and peak Foley. It has the greatest Rumble ever. It has two of the earliest widespread examples of the Ladder match, and both are great. 

That's my answer.

[Frankensteiner]

80s had better crowds and setting, more volume due to house shows being taped (although 90s handhelds still have a few gems), and a deeper talent roster. However, 90s peaked higher both in terms of output and style so I chose 90s. Not unlike what others have said so far.

 

Quote

 

I think the high end stuff actually compares pretty well. Probably the top two feuds of the decades:

Slaughter/Sheik vs Bret/Austin

Greg/Tito vs Bret/Owen

Looking a little deeper...

Savage/Steamboat vs Savage/Warrior

Slaughter/Backlund vs HBK/Taker

Tito/Savage vs Savage/Flair

Backlund/Patera vs Bret/Hennig

Hogan/Piper vs Austin/Foley

I feel like I really keep going for the 80s...Bruno vs Larry Z, Slaughter vs Patterson, Hogan vs Bossman, HOgan vs Savage, Hogan vs Orndorff, Backlund vs Valentine, Rockers vs Brainbusters, etc etc 

 

Sure but you can keep going with 90s feuds too: Bret/Bulldog, Bret/Flair, Shawn/Razor, Bret/Diesel, Shawn/Mankind, Bret/Backlund, Bret/Shawn, Bret/Yoko, Bret/Lawler, Shawn/Diesel, etc. 

[sek69]

I think since the WWF was running 3 separate circuits at once at points in the 80s means there's a lot more chaff to sift through. Not everyone is going to be willing to dig through all those jobber vs jobber 15 minute draws to find some of the hidden gems on 80s lineups and I can't really blame them for that, 

[elliott]

20 minutes ago, sek69 said:

I think since the WWF was running 3 separate circuits at once at points in the 80s means there's a lot more chaff to sift through. Not everyone is going to be willing to dig through all those jobber vs jobber 15 minute draws to find some of the hidden gems on 80s lineups and I can't really blame them for that, 

I wouldn't want to sift through all the Bastion Booger, Mantaur, Bushwackers, or RUsso era stuff either.  

No Vince Russo and no HHH in the 80s

Just skip the jobber matches or whenever Muraco shows up 

[Matt D]

When’s the last time you’ve really given the Bushwhackers a serious look? 

[elliott]

As the Sheepherders, within the last 5 years as the Bushwackers like as a kid. So its a fair point. 

edit. 

@Matt D do I need to revisit the Bushwackers?

[sek69]

33 minutes ago, elliott said:

I wouldn't want to sift through all the Bastion Booger, Mantaur, Bushwackers, or RUsso era stuff either.  

No Vince Russo and no HHH in the 80s

Just skip the jobber matches or whenever Muraco shows up 

Yeah but there's tons more shows in the 80s to sort out. The 90s at least makes it pretty clear what you can skip over, there's a buttload of 80s matches that look like they might be good but turn out otherwise and vice versa. 

[Matt D]

26 minutes ago, elliott said:

As the Sheepherders, within the last 5 years as the Bushwackers like as a kid. So its a fair point. 

edit. 

@Matt D do I need to revisit the Bushwackers?

Does anyone else? No. Do you? Yes.

You know the drill: timing, selling, hope spots and cut offs, strikes and other offense, build to payoff in comedy spots, use of repetition. 

Start with the Rougeaus and Beverly Brothers matches.

[elliott]

Counter point: What if I keep watching Fuerza Guerrera and then maybe all of the Tully Blanchard?

[Matt D]

Just now, elliott said:

Counter point: What if I keep watching Fuerza Guerrera and then maybe all of the Tully Blanchard?

Keep watching Fuerza. You're doing important work there.

I'm not sure of the necessary variation inherent in Tully matches. It's worth seeing oddities certainly.

[NotJayTabb]

On 10/6/2021 at 9:36 PM, sek69 said:

I think since the WWF was running 3 separate circuits at once at points in the 80s means there's a lot more chaff to sift through. Not everyone is going to be willing to dig through all those jobber vs jobber 15 minute draws to find some of the hidden gems on 80s lineups and I can't really blame them for that, 

My foolish completist nature means I've sat through a lot of chaff, but one of the useful things about watching old cards on the network is having the length of each segment available to help with decisions like this. An 18 minute segment titled "Sal Bellomo vs Tony Garea" is a helpful red flag to skip.

[MrMoonlight]

First, I don't separate "in ring" from the rest, I mean, if you build good characters/storylines... that will help the match if done well, which is part of the whole point.

Now it's still pretty hard if we stick to WWF, where it's sooo clear if you think US wrestling as a whole was better in the 80's imo.

I'll write down some thoughts as I process this question and I may have a definitive answer at the end.

 

I agree with the fact that 80's have more depth. That comes from all the MSG, Spectrum, Boston Garden... shows we have compared to mostly skippable TV and uneven PPV cards. I mean, it's not fair to compare at least 3 big house shows every months in the 80's to what? 80 PPV for the whole decade of the 90's. So I guess in terms of sheer amount of nice stuff to watch, the 80's definetly have more.

Now,

How about high end stuff? Well, without looking that much into it, it feels quite even, and even if I end up counting more, say, ****+ match in the 90's, it won't be significant.

How about the product? In both cases there are some weak years and some pretty interesting or even exciting ones. I'd say the 90's may have the highest and lowest, because 99 is still 90's. So no point awarded here, the 80's still have the lead on depth.

Star power and talents? Ok, one thing has to be said, the tag division was sooo way better in the 80's (Bulldogs, Dream team, harts, killer bees, demolition, islanders, strike force, rockers, brainbusters...), or, if you will, who's the best Tag Team of the 90's overall? I won't give you an answer but I'm pretty confident you'll realize trying to answer what I mean. Now I have to say the 90's had better workers as their main event, but their mid card stuff doesn't feel better, so overall, I'd give the edge to the 80's here again.

How about what now? It feels like other criteria could be atmospheres, crowds... and even though people were hot for Austin, The Rock, overall the 80's squash the 90's here. I like the "raw" (no pun intended) production of the 80's house shows, the promos felt more real, the crowd helps the suspension of disbelief.

So yeah, there may still be a bunch of criterions to cover but my goat cheese/spinach lasagnas are ready and it feels the 80's have made themselves a strong enough case in my book, so there you go.

 

[flyonthewall2983]

The 80’s for tag team matches and Tito-Greg