5 Reasons WWE's Attitude Era is better than the modern era and 5 reasons why it's not
Perhaps one of the biggest arguments which break out among WWE fans today pertains to the Attitude Era.
Many wrestling fans seem to be convinced that WWE's Attitude Era, a period existing between 1997 and 2002, was infinitely superior to the current WWE product. They cite names like Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, and De-Generation X when they extol the virtues of this time period. In the minds of these fans, the Attitude Era was just plain better than what WWE offers today.
But then there are other fans who believe that the Attitude Era was overrated. They point out misogynistic tendencies and characters in poor taste like Val Venis and the Godfather.
So, which of these two disparate groups are right? Perhaps both, and perhaps neither. Here are five reasons why the Attitude Era was better than the modern era in WWE, and five reasons why it was not.
Better #1: An Edgier Product
Perhaps the reason most cited for the Attitude Era being better than the modern era in WWE is the edgier product offered by the company.
1997 was a different time, and pro-wrestling found itself competing with the internet, video games, and extreme sports for attention, as well as the burgeoning Mixed Martial Arts explosion.
In order to compete, the WWE had to find ways to appeal to what was, at the time, the ideal advertising demographic: Males aged 16-36. It was believed that this age group was more willing to spend money and support their favorite entertainment forms than other demographics.
Thus, the WWE during the Attitude Era featured all of the things young men are thought to favor: Scantily clad women, curse words, drinking, and drug references, and breaking the rules.
Many fans believe this programming decision made the Attitude Era more entertaining.