Wrestling Forum banner

Biggest mistakes in the Attitude Era?

31K views 127 replies 76 participants last post by  Thekweewee 
#1 ·
Because of the WWE'13 launch and the Attitude Era mode in it, the momeries about those great times are back. WWE made a lot of good decisions, that helped them survive, but like always, nothing is perfect. Whats the biggest mistakes of WWE in 1997-2001?
 
#31 ·
I agree with the guy who mentioned Austin turning heel. They should of seen the fans weren't going to buy that shit and when they shook hands Austin stuns McMahon. Didn't have to turn him heel, we'd just seen him demolish The Rock with a chair, but then stun McMahon, he should of took a new edge to his character in the fact that he will literally do anything to win the title, side with McMahon for a second to get the job done but then show he doesn't trust anybody.
 
#32 ·
Surprised no one has mentioned this but IMO, Kane should have gotten an extended run with the belt in 1998.

He should have at least held the belt until November/December, possibly dropping it to Foley then continue with the planned Rock/Foley feud. But having him win it, dropping it the next night to Austin then a few months later, having him and Taker as "co-champions" was a bad idea. I understand it helped turn the Rock heel and it was great how so many angles were born from Austin/McMahon but I feel Kane would have been great as the dominant and unstoppable champion.

And The Union was a pretty bad idea, as well.
 
#41 ·
But having him win it, dropping it the next night to Austin then a few months later, having him and Taker as "co-champions" was a bad idea.
It was pretty stupid. The Taker / Kane / Mankind / Austin stuff at first was a total clusterfuck. (Thank god Kane + Taker in late 1998 was fucking awesome) But I think the most logical reasoning behind this was simply, ratings.

The WWF was hot again, as was WCW. Going back and forth in the ratings. Honestly, who didn't want to see Austin get his rematch the night after King of the Ring? Raw won the ratings that night 5.36 to Nitro's 4.1
 
#33 ·
Same problem wcw had, not creating future stars for the business. Vince rode Taker,Austin,Rock,HHH as much as WCW rode Hogan,Nash,Savage,Sting with both companies not really creating to many future talents. When the AE started to die down in 2001, Vince thought he would do alright buy buying the wcw roster and creating the dream feuds that we always wanted to see. But push came to shove and Vince thought he could just buy a few of the guys and go from there. It didnt quite pan out. So he did the draft split but still he relied on the stars from the AE. Yes guys like Big Show werent old but they were tv old. Then it seemed like anytime he pushed an ew name, it didnt quite work out: Brock left,Benoit/Eddie didnt draw, JBL although a good heel just wasnt that good for buyrates and attendance. So it took a little bit longer but Vince finally got some good all stars for his company: Cena,Batista,Orton..and now Punk but it took awhile to get there.

I mean look at the top stars of the attitude era and by 2002 how thin the roster was:

Rock-left for hollywood, was only a part timer.
Austin-Left
Kane-Got stale
Undertaker-doing good as the biker, but not as much of a draw as he used tobe.
The list goes on and on

Im going to say the biggest mistake of the attitude era, was not creating new stars towards the end.
 
#35 ·
Some more mistakes from the Attitude Era:

-Kane's 24 hour title reign.

- Feeding Big Show to Austin on the RAW before WM15. That match should've been saved and built up to a PPV. It could've almost been the Hogan/Andre of the Attitude Era if Big Show had been built up properly.

-Not a single standard one-on-one match at WM2000

-Stephanie McMahon's Women's title reign.

-Rock pinning Vince to win the title at KOTR2000 and not Triple H.

-The way the main event of Survivor Series 1999 was handled. They knew weeks ahead of time that Austin would not be able to go so they shouldn't have plugged the triple threat match then pull the bait and switch with Big Show. It seriously pissed off the fans and is why I consider SSeries 1999 one of the worst of all time.

-"Choppy choppy your pee pee."
 
#38 ·
I agree with this.

WWE Title changed hands 13 times in 1999, the tag titles changed hands 15 times (including 6 times between August 9 and September 23) and the Intercontinental Title changed hands 23 times between February 14, 1999 and December 10, 2000 (including 3 times in 4 days during July 1999).

No way that titles should change hands that often so for people saying titles don't matter now, they really didn't then. Problem is, guys back then could get over without having the belt, these days, guys struggle to get over with the belt.
 
#40 ·
Yeah, they dropped the ball with a lot of ECW guys.


But an even bigger mistake was how they handled the whole ECW invasion (even if it was before the Attitude Era).

IMO, that angle could have lasted until the beginning of 1998, possibly ending at Royal Rumble or No Way Out. Now, I know that it harmed WWE in no way, shape or form but the angle still had legs. I hated to see it start off as some ECW vs. WWF storyline that was basically nothing but ECW vs. ECW. IMO, they could have had a few bigger names involved in it and as I said before, somehow start a Tommy Dreamer/HBK feud with Beulah cheating on Dreamer with Shawn. Could have gotten ECW exposure and also gotten Shawn over even more as a womanizing asshole.

I feel that would have been highly entertaining than ECW vs. Van Dam & Sabu, with Doug Furnas, Phil Lafon, Lance Wright and Brakkus thrown in for no apparent reason.
 
#42 ·
WWE made very few mistakes during this era which is probably why it was so successful.

Bret would have fit in fine with the Attitude era. I remember his promo where he ripped HBK/HHH and called them homos etc. He had that kind of attitude when needed.

Kane's one day title run seemed stupid. I would have had him carry it for a month or so before having Austin win it back at a PPV.

The higher power being Vince was a slight letdown but kept the Austin/McMahon feud going and gave us that memorable phrase "It was me Austin, It was me all along".

Rikishi being the driver and doing it for the Rock. WWE meant well and was trying to elevate Rikishi but even they quickly realized they made a mistake which is why Triple H very quickly became the real mastermind behind all that in storyline.

The Wrestlemania 2000 main event should have either been Rock/Triple H in a singles or Mick Foley should have won the 4-way. You should either give fans the greatest match possible (Triple H/Rock in their prime one on one at WM) or the great story (Mick winning) and they gave us neither.

Summerslam 1999 should have been Austin/Triple H one on one. Mick Foley also got thrown into this match. I suppose so Austin wouldn't have to job to a heel Triple H. Mick dropped the title the next night to Triple H but I always felt like Triple H should have won that title at Summerslam because it was the biggest WWE event of the summer and he had all the momentum in the world at that time.

I think turning Austin heel was a mistake. He became a good heel but he was just too important as a face to turn heel imo.

The whole invasion storyline. Should have just coughed up the cash for guys like Goldberg so they could be the top Alliance heels feuding with top WWE faces like Austin, Rock etc.
 
#45 ·
Regarding the Kane title reign:

He was never meant to be the guy to hold the lengthy reign or properly main event like Austin, Rock, HHH etc. Vince McMahon had been trying to get one over on Austin ever since there feud began. He knew that if he invested in Kane and add the first blood stipulation (knowing Kane is masked), he'll finally get over on his rival and he did.

Kane wasn't on the level of the Austins, The Rocks, the Triple Hs, The Undertakers etc. which is why he rarely ever beat them. So when Austin went one on one with him the following night he was always going to win (hence why Bearer and Vince never wanted Kane to accept Austins challenge)

I thought it was a good angle and definitely wasn't anywhere near one of the biggest mistakes.
 
#46 ·
Austin was the new face of the company. He should've held the title for at least 6 months, which he did minus that one day. Still, it was pointless and never should've happened. He certainly shouldn't have dropped the belt to Kane, who was certainly not ready. I'm as big a Kane-a-nite as snybody but that's the truth.

That being said, Kane should've had a legit title reign in 1999 or 2000. He was certainly more deserving than Triple H in August of 1999.
 
#48 ·
There was a LOT of crap back then, but I wouldn't say any were any real mistakes. A mistake is putting the belt on David Arquette, or letting a lot of cheques bounce therefore you're not paying your talent.

Stuff like Mae Young giving birth, or Vince's reveal as the Higher Power, or further Rikishi running Austin over and even further to Katie Vick, were all just stupid booking decisions or just illogical writing.

There is a lot to list in terms of poor wrestling, bad storylines and ridiculous happenings, but very very few mistakes, if any.
 
#51 ·
Obviously, you didn't watch from start to finish.

Too many title changes, dropping the ball with The Alliance, Rikishi running down Austin, failure to push any ECW talents and pretty much burying Booker T.

Big difference is, there were so many good moments that they outnumbered the bad. And nothing I listed was bad, it just could have been ten times better.
 
#57 ·
Agreed. I remember being pumped about Taz going to the WWF. Part of me was alittle surprised because Taz is a small guy. I thought he came in on a very good match with Kurt Angle at Royal Rumble 2000 and he was off on the right track. Sadly, outside of that match, the only other feud I remember of him in the WWF was his feud with JR, which then naturally evolved into a match with Lawler at SummerSlam 2000. They could have done a much better job booking him after the Angle match. He should have been booked as a monster/part MMA/ass-kicking heel. Have him work his way up to the IC Title and see if he can get over as a main eventer after a run with the IC belt.
 
#62 ·
The constant Mcmahon shit. Almost every brilliant storyline they had faded out because of it. The Ministry turning into The Corporate Ministry was the biggest example and really killed The Undertaker's character at the time.

Austin's heel turn would be the 2nd biggest mistake. Really unneccesary, impulsive decision, especially considering The Rock had to go off and shoot movies.
 
#64 ·
The constant Mcmahon shit. Almost every brilliant storyline they had faded out because of it. The Ministry turning into The Corporate Ministry was the biggest example and really killed The Undertaker's character at the time.

Austin's heel turn would be the 2nd biggest mistake. Really unneccesary, impulsive decision, especially considering The Rock had to go off and shoot movies.
This. They couldve had Austin win fair, Vince come in and kinda just pat him on the back, then out of nowhere Trips comes out and lays Austin out. End the show with Trips over Austin. Fuck, you couldve even had Vince book Triple H vs Austin right there with Triple H getting the victory. At Backlash you have Taker vs HHH vs Austin. Sets up a good feud.
 
#63 ·
A mistake that I had forgotten about was Road Warrior Hawk's painkiller addiction and subsequent suicide attempt on Raw... cringeworthy.

Taking an actual serious problem in the industry and making a joke out of it is awful even by Attitude Era standards.
 
#67 ·
I agree in the fact that I loved Foley when he had that sit down interview with JR and went over his life story. He was still deranged enough and a little more human.

That said, they had to increase his marketability, especially since they wanted to use him as a spot main-eventer. Mick has great comedic timing and the fans ate it up. I'm sure he would tell you himself that he needed to make the change to be even more likable.
 
#69 ·
Way they handled Big Show when he came in

You had a guy who is 7"2, 500 pounds and yet you have lose within a few weeks of him arriving. He could have drawn MASSIVE money for the company if built properly and not just treated like any other guy

The heavy focus on the McMahons was a big mistake as well
 
#84 ·
Obviously turning Austin heel since from that point on business was just never the same. Fans didn't buy it and while it may have given his character a new lease on life fans weren't interested in watching him receive his comeuppance.

But if we're just poking fun at the Attitude Era...

NWA Invasion - Don't know if it was McMahon trying to hoard whatever talent or if it was just a big take that at Cornette shooting on the company but the whole idea sucked. Just a bunch of has-beens & Severn wasting television time.

Brawl 4 All - Dumb concept that exposed the business, injured a bunch of talent and failed to achieve what it intended to. Completely ruined whatever appeal Dr. Death may have had.

Lion Den Matches - They weren't bad matches, but the audience could care less.

Shamrock post 98 - They really built him up well...and then they just made him a Corporate stooge before having him lose to Vince in his own match. Just seemed like a huge waste.

Nicole Bass - Really?

PMS - The whole miscarriage storyline was just painful to watch. Nobody wants to see it on their telly.

Beaver Cleavage - Nor incest storylines.

Vince McMahon 99 - Winning the Rumble, main eventing 4 PPVs, the aforementioned Shamrock victory, a victory against Austin & winning the belt? They jumped the shark big time.

Bossman - Every feud he was in turned to crap and he really wasn't in any shape to perform.

Judgement Day 2000 finish - Taker returns and shows the dasterdly 'faction' by giving them the WWE Title...what?!

King of the Ring 2000 finish - Rock doesn't even pin Hunter for the belt, what?!

Survivor Series 2000 finish - Austin kills HHH, LOL joke, not really but damn!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top