17 Jun 2014 15:56:12
There's been a lot of talk and rumours about a "new attitude era" where WWE will look to follow the format etc of their most successful period in terms of popularity and talent roster depth. Now, during that time were six guys who were always there or there abouts in the top title/ main event picture. The Rock, SCSA, HHH, Chris Jericho, Kurt Angle and (to a slightly lesser extent in terms of he title) The Undertaker were the five top guys who were always more likely to be holding the Championship than any of the others, whereas nowadays it seems a lot more open and there isn't really an elite group of top stars imo.

So my question is, IF that sort of thing were to happen in the next 2-3 years, who from the current full-time roster would make up the elite group of six regular title chasing superstars?

For me, it would be Dean Ambrose, John Cena, Randy Orton, Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins and Bray Wyatt.

1.) 17 Jun 2014
I think you almost hit it on the head. It was not the writing or style of wrestling but the fantastic talent on show that helped the attitude era.

2.) 17 Jun 2014
Absolutely agree, JEPW. The depth of talent available to WWE at that time was frightening. As for writing, I agree to an extent. There were as many bad storylines as good in that period, if not more bad.

3.) 17 Jun 2014
I think what makes the Attitude Era stick out is the fact that, while the writing in the lower/midcard was mostly poor and a bit too out there, the storylines at the top level among that elite group of guys were generally very good because they were kept relatively simple. This allowed the Rock's, Austin's etc to cut great promos, be charismatic and funny when needed, but serious as well and ultimately get in the ring and have great matches during and to end major feuds for the main Championship which was always stressed as the number one objective for those guys. The reason for that being that it looked good in storyline, but also because it was legit. Those guys knew if they didn't perform or were missing for whatever reason, that there was someone equally or more talented just waiting to take their spot.

4.) 17 Jun 2014
It was also the fact the midcard all had talent and were booked as if they mattered.

Guys like Eddie, Beniot, Goldust, Val Venus were the equivalent of todays Zack Ryders.

5.) 17 Jun 2014
True, Bessex. Also the tag team division was on fire for the most part! TLC!

6.) 17 Jun 2014
For me rhodes rollins ambrose reigns wyatt cesaro ziggler bryan should all be there for many years to come. Guys like kane hhh lesnar goldust should be used sparingly to put across the new talent. Paige and aj could also be like the lita n trish of old n tamina almost a nrw chyna. there's potential in wwe to really blossom over the next few years IF they stop putting all there eggs in super cenas basket and don't rush guys to top then bury them like ryback axel sandow etc

7.) 18 Jun 2014
The six for me would be
Antonio Cesaro
Seth Rollins
Roman Reigns
Dean Ambrose
Bray Wystt
Randy Orton

Orton may be a dividing choice but he is a great wrestler whi can help in putting over younger talent
as much as I like Bryan he is not main event material the attitude era was built in larger than life superstars Bryan iw nit over with me and has only been promoted because of this silly yes movement
Cena well enough said

8.) 18 Jun 2014
Its the booking that kills them today, to many matches that don't matter at all. Too many guys not doing anything.

Its almost like somebody decided that your average wrestling fan can't concentrate on more than one or two stories at a time.

Everything at the minute is geared toward either the Shield/Evolution/Authority explosion or Bray Wyatt.

There is a subtle Barrett vs Sheamus vs RVD vs Cesaro thing going on, but what is say Mark Henry's current story arc? What is Swagger doing every week? what's happened to Kanes push? Where is Rusev going?

There are too many guys that just have pointless matches that don't lead on to anything else.

In the 90's even Los Bourinqua's had a running feud with DOA.

They had European, Lightheavywieght, and Hardcore title divisions and kept them all relevant because somebody was booking it right.

9.) 18 Jun 2014
It is not the undercard that draws viewers or money. It is the big main events that everyone wants to see and the attitude era kept on producing these. today what big match in WWE is there left? we have seen them all!

10.) 19 Jun 2014
I'm always drawn to the undercard.

11.) 19 Jun 2014
You are in the small minority.

{Ed008's Note - Well it depends though the undercard back in the ruthless agression era was always the highlight for me Benoit,Jericho,Hardyz etc even some of the PPV's in the last year how many times did I hear that people couldn't wait for The Shield's match they weren't the Main Event same goes with Ziggler and many others.

12.) 20 Jun 2014
The only PPV's I consider ordering is Mania and the Rumble, and that is because you get full value.

I was never going to order Payback to see The Shield vs Evolution, then a very average Raw show.

I want matches that have a point from beginning to end, like they were when I was a kid.

It could be something as simple as Val Venus had used one of the Godfathers hoes in a film and wouldn't share the profit, but they would argue about it, then the heel would cost the face a few matches on Raw, then they would settle it at a PPV.

Essentially the feud that Ambrose and Rollins are building was happing all over the show, and interest in matches at the bottom of a ppv card were as interesting as the top.