A Debate question

[Judge Fudge]

This is meant to be civil. So keep the name calling to a minimum if you can.

@Toadman005 your podium is beside @The Q . KEEP HIM INLINE.

The question I came with while I was working.

With the popularity of Fighting with my family, A major food company ( mars) supporting 2 wwe PPVS, Yamaha supporting Fastlane and now Stroman on SNL sometime soon.

The question is simple. Is the WWE now More/ the same or less socially and pop culturally relevant as it was during the Attitude era?

I will allow the others to vote and discuss as well.

By others I mean people who don't usually come to this side of the land.

 

[Duffman]

Wrestling isn’t seen as a joke anymore in the mainstream so that definitely helps. I think to wrestling fans it’s less but to everyone else it’s more.

I mean you have the acting success of John Cena and Batista and you have the tv success of Total Divas & Total Bella’s to help legitimize wrestling to the average entertainment fan( now whether you wanna argue that reality TV drama shows aren’t “legitimate” doesn’t change the fact that they are super huge draws).

Fans of the Attitude Era and not the current era may not like it but WWE going PG was the best thing the company ever did. They have so many advertising deals now they never would’ve even dreamed about during the Attitude Era.

 

[wildturkey]

I think it has to be less. While its more accepted mainstream like Duffman was saying, I feel like 99% of WWE's roster is recognized by the mainstream. Like if you went out on the street and showed people a picture of Seth Rollins and said "Who is this?", most wouldn't get it. But in the Attitude area, more people would recognize Rock, Austin, Taker, Mankind, etc.

I think the difference now though is the community that watches wrestling is more engaged, though. The internet has provided some many avenues (Twitter, Youtube, message boards, podcasts, etc) to talk and share that its to the point where even a "casual" wrestling fan will pretty much know just about everything going on. So while the bigger audience might not be there from the Attitude area, this modern audience is still sizable but more engaged.

 

[Toadman005]

This is meant to be civil. So keep the name calling to a minimum if you can.

@Toadman005 your podium is beside @The Q . KEEP HIM INLINE.

The question I came with while I was working.

With the popularity of Fighting with my family, A major food company ( mars) supporting 2 wwe PPVS, Yamaha supporting Fastlane and now Stroman on SNL sometime soon.

The question is simple. Is the WWE now More/ the same or less socially and pop culturally relevant as it was during the Attitude era?

I will allow the others to vote and discuss as well.

By others I mean people who don't usually come to this side of the land.

I believe that the WWE is now more corporately mainstreaming accepted, because, let's face it the -PG toned down, open charity, family and very female friendly WWE is far more marketable then the attitude era which had a lot of racial tension, misogyny borderline offensive stereotypes etc. The godfather was a pimp, Val Venis was a **** star, Gangrel was supposedly a blood drinking vampire - and don't get me started on Golddust. Advertisers wouldn't touch the WWE with a 15 foot pole if they still acted like that. So yes corporately they are far more socially pop accessible - But as for actual cultural social relevancy? It's not even close. In the late 90s and everybody had an Austin Skull shirt, n.W.o shirt and the Rocks catchphrases were used everywhere.

 

[The Q]

I think it has to be less. While its more accepted mainstream like Duffman was saying, I feel like 99% of WWE's roster is recognized by the mainstream. Like if you went out on the street and showed people a picture of Seth Rollins and said "Who is this?", most wouldn't get it. But in the Attitude area, more people would recognize Rock, Austin, Taker, Mankind, etc.

I think the difference now though is the community that watches wrestling is more engaged, though. The internet has provided some many avenues (Twitter, Youtube, message boards, podcasts, etc) to talk and share that its to the point where even a "casual" wrestling fan will pretty much know just about everything going on. So while the bigger audience might not be there from the Attitude area, this modern audience is still sizable but more engaged.

Social media has changed the game for better and worse.

But I still think you're stuck with a similar pool of fans.

Just look at the comments when ESPN posts anything about WWE on Facebook or Instagram. It's brutal.

It's just become more popular because the fans of the attitude era now have kids who are probably weatching as well since they grew up on WWE.

And the Rock is far more recognizable than Batista or Cena, including basically extending Fast and the Furious by a few movies, and his fame was built during the attitude era.

There are just fewer icons now that the public would know off the street.

 

[The Q]

I believe that the WWE is now more corporately mainstreaming accepted, because, let's face it the -PG toned down, open charity, family and very female friendly WWE is far more marketable then the attitude era which had a lot of racial tension, misogyny borderline offensive stereotypes etc. The godfather was a pimp, Val Venis was a **** star, Gangrel was supposedly a blood drinking vampire - and don't get me started on Golddust. Advertisers wouldn't touch the WWE with a 15 foot pole if they still acted like that. So yes corporately they are far more socially pop accessible - But as for actual cultural social relevancy? It's not even close. In the late 90s and everybody had an Austin Skull shirt, n.W.o shirt and the Rocks catchphrases were used everywhere.

This. So much this.

All true.

It's a far worse product for the fans, but more boardroom approval.

But even back then Vince had major sponsors.

Karate Fighters (a sweet and underrated toy & a Milton Bradley product) sponsored survivor series, I know stridex did at least one summer slam.

I don't recall others, but neither of those were small time brands.

 

[The Q]

This is meant to be civil. So keep the name calling to a minimum if you can.

@Toadman005 your podium is beside @The Q . KEEP HIM INLINE.

The question I came with while I was working.

With the popularity of Fighting with my family, A major food company ( mars) supporting 2 wwe PPVS, Yamaha supporting Fastlane and now Stroman on SNL sometime soon.

The question is simple. Is the WWE now More/ the same or less socially and pop culturally relevant as it was during the Attitude era?

I will allow the others to vote and discuss as well.

By others I mean people who don't usually come to this side of the land.

I really thought when you tagged me this would be about becky. lol

 

[Toadman005]

I really thought when you tagged me this would be about becky. lol

Mmmm Becky.

 

[Judge Fudge]

I'm very short and sweet when i'm trying to say stuff in debates or essays in such so bear with me

I think that it is less as well but it is Improving.

I Believe that we had a huge "Black eye" era from 2005-2009(hell i'd even go as far as adding 2010 to that list. Things like Benoit death and the multiple scandals after, Test's death, Eddie's. This focused a huge spotlight on the WWE and not in the good way. Also take a look at the Booking during that time.... Hell for a bit we had a champion who couldn't cut a promo because his English was extremely poor and he couldn't wrestle a lick and was slow and sluggish. The only thing he had going for him was his look.

Slowly we had to dig out of the hole. PG has helped alot IMO because it changed the conversation about what wrestling was or at least one side of it

Also HHH taking over Talent relations helped because as someone said here, i think it was @The Q , we had a lot of fans that grew up during the Attitude Era. Alot of those fans got sick of this shit in the Black Eye Era. The starting watching and talking about guys such as Finn Balor, AJ Styles, Sami Zayn, Kevin Owens etc... HHH takes over and boom. All of those guys are signed and slowly those fans that were turned away start coming back bit by bit, signing by signing and those guys have kids themselves.....

So i think there still has to be work done but brighter future is ahead or i hope so........

 

[The Q]

I'm very short and sweet when i'm trying to say stuff in debates or essays in such so bear with me

I think that it is less as well but it is Improving.

I Believe that we had a huge "Black eye" era from 2005-2009(hell i'd even go as far as adding 2010 to that list. Things like Benoit death and the multiple scandals after, Test's death, Eddie's. This focused a huge spotlight on the WWE and not in the good way. Also take a look at the Booking during that time.... Hell for a bit we had a champion who couldn't cut a promo because his English was extremely poor and he couldn't wrestle a lick and was slow and sluggish. The only thing he had going for him was his look.

Slowly we had to dig out of the hole. PG has helped alot IMO because it changed the conversation about what wrestling was or at least one side of it

Also HHH taking over Talent relations helped because as someone said here, i think it was @The Q , we had a lot of fans that grew up during the Attitude Era. Alot of those fans got sick of this shit in the Black Eye Era. The starting watching and talking about guys such as Finn Balor, AJ Styles, Sami Zayn, Kevin Owens etc... HHH takes over and boom. All of those guys are signed and slowly those fans that were turned away start coming back bit by bit, signing by signing and those guys have kids themselves.....

So i think there still has to be work done but brighter future is ahead or i hope so........

WWE wouldn't even exist without the attitude era. In many ways.

The two biggest are probably:

1) they lose to WCW

and

2) you don't have the fans with kids now. It probably dies during the black eye era you mentioned. Having fans who grew up on the Attitude era who wanted to come back but didn't want to put up with that product, are what have brought it back.

Plus, enough hold overs who kept watching anyway, despite the subpar product.

 

[wazzu31]

WWE wouldn't even exist without the attitude era. In many ways.

The two biggest are probably:

1) they lose to WCW

and

2) you don't have the fans with kids now. It probably dies during the black eye era you mentioned. Having fans who grew up on the Attitude era who wanted to come back but didn't want to put up with that product, are what have brought it back.

Plus, enough hold overs who kept watching anyway, despite the subpar product.

Just to add another reason is that it is main stream with women now too. I hadn’t watched it since the attitude era until my wife got into Total Divas and now Total Bella’s. Kids are a reason attitude era fans have come back but don’t discount their wives either.

 

[The Q]

Funny to also think that Bret hart agreeing to let WWF out of that 20 year deal probsbly saves them (because they were teetering on insolvency).

And of course no faux Montreal screw job at starrcade 97

 

[DefCONNOne]

Funny to also think that Bret hart agreeing to let WWF out of that 20 year deal probsbly saves them (because they were teetering on insolvency).

And of course no faux Montreal screw job at starrcade 97

He never agreed to that. Ever.

 

[The Q]

He never agreed to that. Ever.

Bret signed a 20 year contract in 96.

 

[The Q]

He never agreed to that. Ever.

Wrong

Bret Hart signs a 20-year deal with the WWF

Your hostility cause I don’t like the worst gimmick in wwe is noted

 

[DefCONNOne]

Bret signed a 20 year contract in 96.

Yes he did, but you're insinuating that he agreed to be let out of his WWF contract. That's just not true.

 

[DefCONNOne]

Wrong

Bret Hart signs a 20-year deal with the WWF

Your hostility cause I don’t like the worst gimmick in wwe is noted

My point, which sailed right over your head, is that Bret Hart never agreed to be let out of his contract. I never disputed he signed the contract in the first place.

I'll ignore the bolded, which is just ignorant.

 

[The Q]

My point, which sailed right over your head, is that Bret Hart never agreed to be let out of his contract. I never disputed he signed the contract in the first place.

I'll ignore the bolded, which is just ignorant.

He could’ve sued the WWF to fulfill the contract.

He didn’t.

No matter how you slice it, he let WWF not uphold their end and he signed with wcw

 

[RobToxin]

WWE wouldn't even exist without the attitude era. In many ways.

The two biggest are probably:

1) they lose to WCW

and

2) you don't have the fans with kids now. It probably dies during the black eye era you mentioned. Having fans who grew up on the Attitude era who wanted to come back but didn't want to put up with that product, are what have brought it back.

Plus, enough hold overs who kept watching anyway, despite the subpar product.

A little off topic but I never thought WCW would have ever won the war.

WWF may have lost it but WCW was always destined to fail.

The reason is Ted Turner was never personally invested in WCW like Vince was in WWF. That's why WCW ended up with everyone from Jim Herd to Vince Russo running it. Could you imagine Vince McMahon ever hiring a Jim Herd to run WWF?

WWF may have sunk without the Attitude Era but, sooner or later, WCW was going to end the way it did because Turner was about his television and not WCW itself.

 

[wazzu31]

A little off topic but I never thought WCW would have ever won the war.

WWF may have lost it but WCW was always destined to fail.

The reason is Ted Turner was never personally invested in WCW like Vince was in WWF. That's why WCW ended up with everyone from Jim Herd to Vince Russo running it. Could you imagine Vince McMahon ever hiring a Jim Herd to run WWF?

WWF may have sunk without the Attitude Era but, sooner or later, WCW was going to end the way it did because Turner was about his television and not WCW itself.

True, but WCW would’ve won before the merger with AOL so someone rich would’ve came and bought the promotion from them. Take the WWE out of it and Nitro beat MNF nearly every week during their run, there would have been bidders for it. But WCW was a side note in the merger, TBS, TNT and CNN were the reason. It was about channels, not necessarily the content. Without the attitude era Bischoff or essentially anyone would’ve had investors who would’ve bought it and got the USA time slot that Raw had.