Thread: Was ECW all it was cracked up to be?
View Single Post
Old 09-02-2014, 10:02 AM   #10
Swiss Ultimate
Amazon Affiliate
 
Swiss Ultimate's Avatar
 
Posts: 42,694
Swiss Ultimate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Swiss Ultimate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Swiss Ultimate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Swiss Ultimate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Swiss Ultimate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Swiss Ultimate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Swiss Ultimate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Swiss Ultimate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Swiss Ultimate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Swiss Ultimate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Swiss Ultimate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Swiss Ultimate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Swiss Ultimate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hb2k View Post
So for this weeks podcast, we're going to look at ECW, and discuss the merits of the product throughout its history, and talk about how much of the stuff was genuine quality, and how much of it was the Heyman illusion. I think it's a pretty interesting topic, given the loyalty amongst hardcores it seemed to have, given the microscope that was always given to the Big Two, and is still given to WWE and TNA today.

As usual, I'll be reading feedback on the show and crediting you accordingly, but I want to get a bit of a gauge on opinions here - did you like the ECW product during the time? How do you feel it looks retrospectively? What periods were best, which ones were worse, how important do you believe it was, and moreover, does it deserve the reputation it had and has to this day?
Yes. It was hardcore wrestling. It was not cracked up to be big budget product. It was the wrestling equivalent of going to see a bunch of garage bands play at a shitty punk venue. It was an experience.
Swiss Ultimate is offline   Reply With Quote