Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
845 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,272 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,735 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,957 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,805 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,471 Posts
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”.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
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”.
you are literally saying exactly what i think.

i think i carried on until 07-08 but that was the last real period i watched wrestling
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,170 Posts
Smackdown from 2002-4 was mostly very good with Brock, Kurt, The Smackdown Six, Big Show and Paul Heyman booking but RAW during this time was arguably the worst wrestling television from a major promotion in history thanks to you nose who.

So 97-99 probably wins for Austin-Rock-Vince, the wild crowds etc. etc. although the actual wrestling was mostly terrible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
99-97 is miles better then 2002-2005, even though we got the GOAT gimmick in Hollywood Rock in 2003

99-2002 is better then them all
 

·
I'm about to end this man's whole career
Joined
·
782 Posts
I love both eras.

WWF 1997-1999 for the entertainment value (with 97 being a great year overall).

Though, I'm wondering why you didn't add 2000 to 97-99? Because if you did, then 2000 would be the best Attitude era year instead of 1997.

WWE 2002-2005 for the great matches (with 2002 being a great year overall).
 

·
The Babyface of WF
Joined
·
12,535 Posts
2002-2005 in bulk for me I actually missed quite a few episodes between 97-99 so I didn't get the full load due to limitations as a kid staying up watching it.

But it's close I mainly saw Raw/PPV in 1998 and one year isn't beating four.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top