View Full Version : Which do you prefer?
Reggie05
03-08-2007, 04:54 PM
WCW in 2000 or WWE in 2002? I'd say WCW in 2000 because it was so bad that it was just hilarious to watch. WWE in 2002 wasn't, it was just awful.
addy2hotty
03-08-2007, 05:04 PM
You have to concede that this is different from the usual newbie 'poll thread'.
Random muchly.
At least it isn't a newbie "(Insert random IWC God here) is the goods" thread.
Reggie05
03-08-2007, 05:18 PM
Like I said, WCW in 2000 was hilariously bad but WWE in 2002 was just awful. Not even funny but yeah they're pretty much the same I guess.
The One
03-08-2007, 05:31 PM
WWE 2002 was terrible. Way too fucking much Hogan for me to stomach.
FourFifty
03-08-2007, 10:42 PM
WWE 2002 was terrible. Way too fucking much Hogan for me to stomach.:y:
The One
03-08-2007, 10:44 PM
Hey 450, have I just missed them or have you been going light on your knocks on my gods lately???
BigDaddyCool
03-08-2007, 10:48 PM
I don't vote for in poll by people with less that 10 posts.
I don't vote for in poll by people with less that 10 posts.
There are so many things wrong in that sentence it's ridiculous.
BigDaddyCool
03-08-2007, 10:52 PM
There are so many things wrong in that sentence it's ridiculous.
Your face is ridiculous. BTW, is ridiculous the word of the day?
I am aware my face is ridiculous, moon man.
FourFifty
03-08-2007, 10:55 PM
Hey 450, have I just missed them or have you been going light on your knocks on my gods lately???
I'm not going to go out of my way to talk trash about any of your gods. If I get a chance to knock on Gunn, X-Pac, Nash, or anyone else you've listed. If you make a valid point, or something I see eye to eye with, I'll say it.
Project 86 will still go on, but I won't rush it.
The One
03-08-2007, 10:56 PM
Fair enough. So is there anyone I can trash talk to get some negs from you?
Dorkchop
03-08-2007, 11:52 PM
I enjoyed a lot more things in WWE 2002 than I did in WCW 2000.
I liked more things about 2002 than I disliked. I know there was a lot of shit (HBK, X-Pac in nWo) but I really liked what I enjoyed.
James Steele
03-09-2007, 12:34 AM
I didn't think 2002 was all that bad other than Hogan and the end of the co-owner angle.
iwantviral
03-09-2007, 01:11 AM
WWE as pretty awful dishing out an overdose of Hogan
FourFifty
03-09-2007, 01:32 AM
WWE as pretty awful dishing out an overdose of Hogan
Finger poke of doom, 'nuff said.
James Steele
03-09-2007, 01:46 AM
I still think Vince should go psycho only for Linda to come out and have the "board of directors" to name Eric Bishoff in temporary control of WWE. Then, have Bishoff somehow make it he maintains a lot of power even when Vince returns. Then you have the Bischoff/McMahon powerstruggle that should have happened in 2002. I thought the co-owner angle was really good, but I always found it ironic that Austin leaving was the cause for Bischoff coming into WWE and Flair coming back in a full-time wrestling role which led to Evolution and the rise of Orton and Batista. Imagine how different wrestling would be if Stone Cold would have never "took his ball and gone home" in 02.
Jeritron
03-09-2007, 02:15 AM
WWE 2002 was terrible. Way too fucking much Hogan for me to stomach.
I agree 2002 was dissapointing and terrible because of "shit hit the fan' reasons. Hogan and Taker as champions was pretty unbearable and seeing the root of so many lingering problems and bad decisions was painful.
However I can't call WCW better. Not even close, simply because 2002 sucked mostly out of dissapointment and bullshit occurences. WCW was just flat out bad through and through.
As bad as 2002 was, you still had Angle RVD Benoit Jericho HHH and an amazing roster. You had the Rock Austin and the return of Michaels. Booker T was amazing. There was the Smackdown six, the new and improved Kane. A wealth of good matches, and Brock Lesnar wasn't a bad rise to watch.
James Steele
03-09-2007, 02:28 AM
I thought Undertaker's reign was good until he became "THE BIG JOVIAL EVIL FATHER-FIGURE TEDDYBEAR".
Reggie05
03-09-2007, 08:46 AM
Finger poke of doom, 'nuff said.
That was 99 not 2000. 2000 is when Hogan left WCW after that whole shoot at Bash at the Beach.
Theo Dious
03-09-2007, 09:14 AM
The biggest problem with 2002 was the whole "Hot Potato Championship" business. In one year the WWE title went from Jericho to HHH to Hogan to Undertaker to Rock to Lesnar to Big Show to Angle. Meanwhile the World Title was reintroduced and went from HHH to Michaels and back again in just a few months. Say what you want about WWE and long-term booking, but it's only gotten better from there.
Jeritron
03-09-2007, 09:27 AM
And even worse than the frequency of changes, is the way in which they were done. I mean, HHH comes back and buries Jericho, and then he drops it to Hogan a month later.
And the worst part of all. The champions. With the exception of Brock and Jericho, the champions were all veterans. Undertaker and Hogan for christsakes. Those guys were facing off for the same title over 10 years prior to that summer. HBK deserved a title win, but him and HHH were no youngins either. Big Show was a joke champion that year.
In the meantime, Jericho, RVD, Benoit, Rey, Edge and Booker T are STILL making up your midcard, when they should all be being pushed into the main event. With 2 brands, 2 world titles and all the veterans to put them over there was no excuse for the torch not being passed in the years of 01-03.
Then suddenly when they realized they pulled a WCW and relied on veteran talent when they could have pushed a new generation, it was too late.
Now they had to build new main eventers and Brock went and quit. So what do you get, the John Cenas of the industry. And the Batistas, and Lashleys.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.