Dopesick

I enjoy both eras thoroughly (I probably watch more Golden Era PPVs these days more than anything else as a means of reminiscing), but Attitude Era really took the biscuit. I videotaped Raw every Friday and kept them on tape for about six months before I took the plunge and decided to tape over it with a newer episode. Every week there was always something entertaining, the crowds were red hot, they utilised all their talent correctly, and when guys like Y2J, Angle, Benoit, Guerrero, Malenko et al all showed up, not only was it entertaining, but it was full of tremendous wrestling as well.

I think it could be summed up like this piece I read somewhere: Back then Bischoff struggled to make a star out of Steve Austin, but McMahon during the Attitude era managed to take two over-the-hill wrestlers and make them into a regular feature every week (Patterson and Brisco).

__________________
Kill Your Boss

The-Rock-Says

I loved the video packages they did for Brisco back then. Just full on trolling the crowd.

Dopesick

YES SIIIIR MISTER MACK MAN

__________________
Kill Your Boss

StonecoldGoat

It Depends upon The era that People grew In.However Golden era never attracted me.Punches/Kicks seemed lame and Punches were too slow.No Outlandish Storylines Like the attitude era.However Its called golden era for a reason because it was profitable and brought wrestling mainstream.

Prefer attitude era.

__________________

nachoman

Kinda skewed poll to be honest. The people who visit this forum are far more likely to have grown up during the attitude era which would automatically give that option the edge

Should have had more options:
golden era under 18 years old, golden era 18-25, golden era over 25.
Attitude era under 18 years old, attitude era 18-25, attitude era over 25

That way you would get better results