WWE Netflix/Peacock/ESPN Discussion Thread

[PeoplesChampGB]

Re: WWE Network Discussion Thread

You can add WM 1 to the bad list and WM 2 to the utterly awful list. WM 1 is worth watching only for historical purposes. There's no reason to ever subject anyone to watching WrestleMania 2 though.

okay. So one out of three on average. That's about the trend nowadays.

[Majingir]

Re: WWE Network Discussion Thread

I watched abunch of past wms, and many really wasn't so great. Part of reason might be cause of diff style vs now, especially in terms of moveset and gimmick matches, but found a number of past wms not so great.

For me,some of more recent ones seem more like an in the moment good type of thing,where replay value years later isn't as great.

[reyes the roof]

Re: WWE Network Discussion Thread

One of the big differences between the early Wrestlemanias and current ones is that they used to stack the card with matches, but most of them were short. So instead of opening a WrestleMania with a Hercules vs Haku match, they just throw everyone who isn't a big name in the battle royal. Now there are fewer matches, but they all have more of a big match feel than the matches that felt like it was just two guys thrown together in the early years

[dubcity]

Re: WWE Network Discussion Thread

Yeah, it's easy to forget that WM 1-3 were the first, third and fourth PPVs in the company's history. They were basically figuring things out as they were going along. WM 1 and 3 are still classics to me, and I can watch those over and over.

[ubernoob]

Re: WWE Network Discussion Thread

I dont know.

Never seen WM 1 or WM 2 (Seen the battle royal and Hogan vs. Bundy). I can't comment on those.

WM 3 was good. WM 4 was good. WM 5 was okay. WM 6 was good. WM 7 was bad. WM 8 is severely underrated and good. WM 9 was bad. WM 10 was okay. WM 11 was bad. WM 12 was good. WM 13 was okay.

So in those first 13 i only have 3 bad ones (7, 9, 11).

14 was good. 15 was bad. 16-21 were good.

IDK. 4 or 5 out of the first 21 being bad I can deal with.

3 was bad overall. A couple classics came from it, but overall the show had way, way more bad matches. (This is including Hogan-Andre as a classic, because even though it was a terrible match it was the kayfabe era and this was HUGE.) If you want to count this as good, I can see that.
1 was terrible.
2 was terrible.
4 was bad and a big letdown after 3.
If 3 was good, 5 was okay. Not good, not terrible but not as good as 3.
6 was terrible outside of Hogan-Warrior. The second best match on the card (DiBiase/Roberts) lost the crowd and kinda put a pause on things because the crowd was doing the wave.
7 was awful at it's worst, and poor at its best.
8 had 3 passable matches at best out of 9 (if we're including Hogan and that botched finish by Papa Shango as passable.). Not good.
9 wasn't good at all, especially considering the Hogan antics.
10 wasnt a good show, but gave us Bret/Owen and HBK/Razor so if you want to say it's passable, cool.
11 was not good (though LT did work his *** off way better than expected.)
12 wasnt a good show at all, and even the crowd was bored for 20 minutes of the iron man match (note: I personally loved this, my 2 childhood favorites in an all time classic match. Not a good show.)
13 had Bret/Austin which was fantastic and HHH/Goldust which was underrated. Not a good show.

If we're going by "passable" WrestleManias (not even good or great, just passable) I would say in the first 13 only... 3, 5, 10 and 13 were passable. 12 as well if you're a huge HBK/Bret mark. That's 8 or 9 of the first 13 being downright bad.

I would say if you think more than that are even close to good, watch them closely but I don't really wish that upon anyone.

[IndianBird]

Re: WWE Network Discussion Thread

I'll always like 9 and I don't care what anyone thinks. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IndianBird]

Re: WWE Network Discussion Thread

Honestly, I really like 1993 which probably puts me in a vast minority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dubcity]

Re: WWE Network Discussion Thread

I'll always like 9 and I don't care what anyone thinks. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Steiners/Headshrinkers is def one of the best tag matches in WM history.

[PeoplesChampGB]

Re: WWE Network Discussion Thread

3 was bad overall. A couple classics came from it, but overall the show had way, way more bad matches. (This is including Hogan-Andre as a classic, because even though it was a terrible match it was the kayfabe era and this was HUGE.) If you want to count this as good, I can see that.
1 was terrible.
2 was terrible.
4 was bad and a big letdown after 3.
If 3 was good, 5 was okay. Not good, not terrible but not as good as 3.
6 was terrible outside of Hogan-Warrior. The second best match on the card (DiBiase/Roberts) lost the crowd and kinda put a pause on things because the crowd was doing the wave.
7 was awful at it's worst, and poor at its best.
8 had 3 passable matches at best out of 9 (if we're including Hogan and that botched finish by Papa Shango as passable.). Not good.
9 wasn't good at all, especially considering the Hogan antics.
10 wasnt a good show, but gave us Bret/Owen and HBK/Razor so if you want to say it's passable, cool.
11 was not good (though LT did work his *** off way better than expected.)
12 wasnt a good show at all, and even the crowd was bored for 20 minutes of the iron man match (note: I personally loved this, my 2 childhood favorites in an all time classic match. Not a good show.)
13 had Bret/Austin which was fantastic and HHH/Goldust which was underrated. Not a good show.

If we're going by "passable" WrestleManias (not even good or great, just passable) I would say in the first 13 only... 3, 5, 10 and 13 were passable. 12 as well if you're a huge HBK/Bret mark. That's 8 or 9 of the first 13 being downright bad.

I would say if you think more than that are even close to good, watch them closely but I don't really wish that upon anyone.

You could do that to any WM though. I could go through WM 30 and say "well, Daniel Bryan's matches were good but then there was the shield/kane/outlaws match that was bad. Brock Lesnar vs Taker was awful. the divas match was awful". And I consider WM 30 to be one of the best. You have to mix it all together and see what you come up with.

The only WM that had good matches all the way through the card was 17. If you try to compare any WM to 17 it will fall short.

Also, Im not going to retort your entire post. That would take too much time. Ill just break down WM 8 since you have insulted the greatness of 8.

1) Michaels vs. Tito
2) Roberts vs. Taker
3) Hart vs. Piper
4) Savage vs. Flair
5) Sid vs. Hogan

I think that's more than 3 "passable" matches. Tito vs. Michaels could very well be the best opening match in Wrestlemania history. Hart vs. Piper was a brawling/technical masterpiece. Savage vs. Flair is self explanatory. Its Savage and Flair together. Roberts vs. Undertaker told an amazing story in the ring. Sid vs. Hogan.....its Hogan.

IDK, maybe its just different generations. I grew up with the "wrestling" aspect. A lot of different holds, bars, and suplexes and slams. Then it went to more high impact moves and got a little faster. Then high flying moves and fast move exchanges along with striking came into play. The last two is probably what most of you guys grew up in. I am glad I was able to watch all three. Not to sound insulting, but I can appreciate all three styles.

Guys back then were all about look and most of the time they sacrificed endurance for muscle tone. That's why matches were shorter back then. You newer generation guys probably think the old way is slow and boring. Me, I think it's more scientific and actual wrestling. Not that either style is bad, we just have our own preferences.

But nobody can deny that the Golden Era had better characters, promos, and commentary. Nobody.

[DJ]

Re: WWE Network Discussion Thread

3 was bad overall. A couple classics came from it, but overall the show had way, way more bad matches. (This is including Hogan-Andre as a classic, because even though it was a terrible match it was the kayfabe era and this was HUGE.) If you want to count this as good, I can see that.
1 was terrible.
2 was terrible.
4 was bad and a big letdown after 3.
If 3 was good, 5 was okay. Not good, not terrible but not as good as 3.
6 was terrible outside of Hogan-Warrior. The second best match on the card (DiBiase/Roberts) lost the crowd and kinda put a pause on things because the crowd was doing the wave.
7 was awful at it's worst, and poor at its best.
8 had 3 passable matches at best out of 9 (if we're including Hogan and that botched finish by Papa Shango as passable.). Not good.
9 wasn't good at all, especially considering the Hogan antics.
10 wasnt a good show, but gave us Bret/Owen and HBK/Razor so if you want to say it's passable, cool.
11 was not good (though LT did work his *** off way better than expected.)
12 wasnt a good show at all, and even the crowd was bored for 20 minutes of the iron man match (note: I personally loved this, my 2 childhood favorites in an all time classic match. Not a good show.)
13 had Bret/Austin which was fantastic and HHH/Goldust which was underrated. Not a good show.

If we're going by "passable" WrestleManias (not even good or great, just passable) I would say in the first 13 only... 3, 5, 10 and 13 were passable. 12 as well if you're a huge HBK/Bret mark. That's 8 or 9 of the first 13 being downright bad.

I would say if you think more than that are even close to good, watch them closely but I don't really wish that upon anyone.

Hard to argue with any of this. Just some additional thoughts:

WM III: What I liked about the show was that aside from the opening tag bout, every match had a storyline attached to it, so the build for even the non-main event matches was solid.

WM IV: Love the tournament concept, but my gosh was this poorly executed.

WM VI: DiBiase-Roberts would've benefitted from being placed earlier in the card. I don't think they necessarily lost the crowd, it was just every other match on the card to that point had been horrible (although Demolition got a nice pop for winning the tag titles and I thought the mixed tag was entertaining only because Savage and Sherri bumped like crazy to try and get the match over), so I think they were just antsy waiting for the Warrior-Hogan match.

[DJ]

Re: WWE Network Discussion Thread

Tito vs. Michaels could very well be the best opening match in Wrestlemania history.

Owen vs. Bret is 1000x better than El Matador-Michaels, and took place just 2 years later.

[IndianBird]

Re: WWE Network Discussion Thread

Owen vs. Bret is 1000x better than El Matador-Michaels, and took place just 2 years later.

I bet he hadn't thought about that one.

HBK jerked the curtain at 3 straight Manias. All three were good matches imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ubernoob]

Re: WWE Network Discussion Thread

But nobody can deny that the Golden Era had better characters, promos, and commentary. Nobody.

As far as this 'fact'?

The only one on your list that is undisputable is the commentary. It destroys what we get today.

[PeoplesChampGB]

Re: WWE Network Discussion Thread

I bet he hadn't thought about that one.

HBK jerked the curtain at 3 straight Manias. All three were good matches imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're right. It did slip my mind. Okay, its second. :-)

[PeoplesChampGB]

Re: WWE Network Discussion Thread

As far as this 'fact'?

The only one on your list that is undisputable is the commentary. It destroys what we get today.

Ill take an Undertaker, Ultimate Warrior, a Snake, Perfect, some Roadwarriors, and a Hacksaw over a first name and last name anyday.