The only way the Attitude/MNW era ruined wrestling, is that it was too good and everything looks mediocre, bland and lifeless in comparison. It was the greatest, best and most successful period this industry will ever see and rightfully so with the passion and unbelievable roster of the greatest superstars of all time all at the same time from WWF, WCW and ECW. The standard was set and nothing will ever come close to it.
I agree, naturally.
No one is saying it isn't successful, but it ruined a lot of things, for one psychology in matches, which goes back to my point about the i quit matches, now a chair shot means nothing, when back in the days before the Attitude Era it was a match ender, and was seen as the one of the lowest things a heel could do a face.
So wait, Attitude ruined matches because they had a chair shot end a match, which it rightly should, and TODAY they don't? That don't make a lick of sense. Its the current eras' fault for going too overboard and allowing people to sustain ridiculous amounts of damage. The whole concept behind a foreign object is that it gives a person an advantage by knocking the other guy senseless. If it didn't, then they wouldn't be illegal and would be fine to use. Hence, to build up the mystique around the use of foreign objects, they have to be shown as being devastating weapons. A chair shot to the head ending a match makes perfect sense-its a 'weapon', that's why its effects are so destructive, and that's also why its not allowed in regular matches due to the unfair advantages it can provide. Today, people kick out from 3 chairshots and 2 finishers. If anything, the current era is ruining the integral concepts and ideas of past generations that helped BUILD pro wrestling.
In fact, I see occurrences like Cena no selling Jericho's sleeper on the ladder and continuing to climb it from MiTB as a shitty patch for lazy story telling and bad psychology. Back in the day the wrestlers could build up psychology on their own very well and the introduction of weapons was almost like a cherry on the sundae, so to speak. Today, so few guys know how to tell a story and properly implement ring psychology that sometimes they just revert to using weapons or pulling off physically impossible feats as a means of building those things up, which I think is a really lame and cheap shortcut to get a match over. It requires no skill. Guys like Austin and Rock could get a better reaction because they KNEW how to play up that psychology and emotion in a match based on their own in ring abilities. Meantime in 2012, John Cena, who knows dick all about ring psychology, says fuck it and takes a horrendous amount of punishment from Brock Lesnar and then just wins after 2 moves. Jesus, that match was blood, violence and weapons galore. If you take every shortcut in the book as a back door into making the match seem better than it is, I have no respect for you. YOU don't have the ability, you're using a prop to give off the illusion that you do.
And for anyone who is going to start quoting matches from Attitude that were violent by saying they were just doing the same thing, please save your breath because it wasn't by ANY stretch the same thing. Perfect example-Rock vs Mankind Royal Rumble 1999. Aside from the great chemistry they had in ring together, which helps build up psychology, they were playing up the fact that Mankind had never said the words I Quit, that he was legendary for the punishment he could take and that Rock would basically have to kill him to win. Rock was putting on his regular smart ass routine, but there were small instances where you could see past that and saw that he was actually a bit intimidated by Foley, especially since Mankind had beaten him once already (and choked him out). As Mankind famously said, "How does it feel, Rock, to be in a match that you can't win and I can't lose?" They built that entire thing up so well and it delivered on every level.
Cena vs Brock...what psychology was there? That Brock could physically dominate Cena? Yeah, the finish really hammered that home. That Cena was on a losing streak (which was all of one match against Rock)? Again, the finish disagrees. Why did Brock go after Cena in the first place? Just because he likes hurting people? Why not go after Hunter and bypass Cena then? Why did Edge need to give Cena a pep talk and basically say "you have to win" as if that wasn't obvious in any match? Because the reputation of the company was at stake and they couldn't let someone who worked for another company get a win?
-CM Punk (RoH, TNA, IWA)
-Daniel Bryan (RoH, NJPW)
-Sin Cara (CMLL)
-Alberto Del Rio (CMLL)
-Triple H (WCW)
-Undertaker (WCW, USWA)
-Rey Mysterio (WCW)
-Big Show (WCW)
-Antonio Cesaro (RoH, CZW)
-Booker T (WCW)
-Chris Jericho (WCW, ECW, CMLL, NJPW)
-Great Khali (NJPW, APW)
-Tensai (NJPW, AJPW)
-Jerry Lawler (NWA, AWA)
-William Regal (WCW)
So yeah, that angle means absolutely nothing. Had they not fucked up they could have built to something huge down the line, like an undefeated Brock vs undefeated Undertaker at WM. That would have huge psychology and have possibly some great story telling. Too bad they ruined it.