WWF 1997-1999 vs WWE 2002-2005 - Wrestling Forum: WWE, AEW, New Japan, Indy Wrestling, Women of Wrestling Forums
 24Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #1 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-25-2018, 04:26 PM Thread Starter
The frankie girl on all the gifs is cute!
 
wrestling_fan_03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 783
Points: 4,247
                     
WWF 1997-1999 vs WWE 2002-2005

Hi guys

Between WWF from 1997-1999 and WWE from 2002-2005 which era was better?

Personally, I grew up with the 2002-2003 era and I'm happy about it.
Great matches, great storylines, great roster, great everything.

And while I love the 1997-1999 era, I think the 2002-2005 era was the more athletic between the two.

I like them both, but 2002-2005 edges out because of nostalgia.
M.V.W. likes this.

wrestling_fan_03 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-25-2018, 04:32 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,210
Points: 8,162
                     
Re: WWF 1997-1999 vs WWE 2002-2005

97-99
Tag89 is offline  
post #3 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-25-2018, 04:36 PM
MJF
Salt of the Earth
 
MJF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 15,905
Points: 46,266
                     
Re: WWF 1997-1999 vs WWE 2002-2005

1997-1999 without a doubt.
promoter2003 and Stephen90 like this.
MJF is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-25-2018, 04:39 PM
 
Cowabunga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Portugal
Posts: 2,848
Points: 5,889
                     
Re: WWF 1997-1999 vs WWE 2002-2005

1997-1999. Those years had Stone Cold Steve Austin and also The Rock. Aka two of the biggest stars ever. Also Mick Foley and Bret Hart and Michaels in the prime of their careers.(1997). And you also had a healthy Undertaker starting to improve in the ring. Plus, a lot of stuff done at the time was new and fresh. A lot of 1999 has aged poorly, though, and a lot of it was Russo's usual crap.

2002-2005 had some good stuff too, but it also had the infamous Triple H reign of terror, Austin and The Rock leaving and the rise of John Cena. I started to watch WWE in 2004 only and I do have some nostalgia for it as well and some of the mid-card acts from the time such as Carlito and Shelton Benjamin and also women like Trish, Lita and Torrie Wilson.
2 Ton 21 and dmc1892 like this.
Cowabunga is offline  
post #5 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-25-2018, 04:40 PM
 
KYRA BATARA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: T-Dot.
Posts: 15,290
Points: 38,640
                     
Re: WWF 1997-1999 vs WWE 2002-2005

Well, 1997-1999 was obviously better from the standpoint of being a much hotter / popular era. I'd also say that it was a much better era creatively.


Matches? It depends on your subjective assessment of quality and what constitutes being a "great" match. If we're talking about effectively book-ending storylines with dramatic in-ring action then the AE certainly delivered where it mattered. That era was full of excellent WORKERS that knew how to get the crowds emotionally invested in what was happening. 2003 probably adopted more of a WCW model where the emphasis was centered more around athleticism and presenting the product more like a pseudo-sport, but (IMO) the key matches from that year generally weren't more compelling to me than the key matches from the AE.

KYRA BATARA is offline  
post #6 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-25-2018, 10:27 PM
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 611
Points: 444
                     
You can't look at WWF 97-99 in a vacuum. There was an equally big company putting on a show at the same time. 97-99 blows the ruthless aggression out of the water. It's not even close. There will never be a better time period than the attitude era.
dmc1892 likes this.
gillbergisback is offline  
post #7 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-25-2018, 10:36 PM
 
The_It_Factor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: N.C.
Posts: 4,636
Points: 10,869
                     
Re: WWF 1997-1999 vs WWE 2002-2005

I’ll echo what others have said, but I HATE brand splits. They had so much talent during that 02 period and a) wasted potential feuds with the split and b) forced people to watch both shows to keep up with all of the stars - which didn’t seem to work out as, IIRC, that began the ratings decline. Most people don’t want to watch that much wrestling every week

The_It_Factor is offline  
post #8 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-26-2018, 07:11 AM
 
Lesnar Turtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,228
Points: 12,816
                     
Re: WWF 1997-1999 vs WWE 2002-2005

02-05 had more high end matches and a deeper roster, but 97-99 was much more focused, had way better storylines/moments and was just more exciting.
Lesnar Turtle is offline  
post #9 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-26-2018, 07:14 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 54
Points: 186
 
Re: WWF 1997-1999 vs WWE 2002-2005

97-99 for me , but to be fair the 2002-05 era is exactly when i got back into watching WWE , i stopped roughly about WM17 for some bizarre reason and never got back into it until late 02 early 03 it was enjoyable too but 97-99 was the peak for me i'll 2000 into the mix aswell
dmc1892 is offline  
post #10 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-26-2018, 08:03 AM
 
ClintDagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Las Colinas, TX
Posts: 1,941
Points: 5,820
                     
Re: WWF 1997-1999 vs WWE 2002-2005

People’s taste are obviously different but just from a pure critical and historical perspective ‘97-‘99 is far & away superior to ‘02-‘05. ‘02-‘05 is sort of wrestling’s last stand meaning it’s the last extended period when wrestling was “good”.
ClintDagger is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome