Was WWF 2000 the greatest Card of all Time?

[Loose Cannon]

I was talking to a couple guys about this last night, but after watching a Eddie Guerrero vs Jericho match for the Euro Title in 2000, it got me thinking. Was the roster during this year the deepest card ever?

You had

HHH, Foley, Big Show, Rock, Austin, Taker in the Main Events

Benoit, Jericho, Angle, Guerrero, Malenko, Tazz, Kane, Regal as your deep midcard. I understand that some of these guys went up to main event level at times.

You had The Dudleys, APA, Hardy's, E&C, the Outlaws as your Tag Teams.

Then you had guys like Right to Censor, Too Cool, Crash, X-pac, AL Snow, Taka and others rounding it out.


I mean come on. It was such a deep roster. what an amazing time.

[Jeritron]

Technically 2001 and 2002 were deeper rosters. They had everyone you named, plus the arrival of guys like Booker T, RVD, Lance Storm, Rey Mysterio and other stars from ECW and WCW.
Then there were debuting stars like Lesnar and Orton.
It also included the return of guys like Flair, Mr. Perfect, Hall & Nash, and....Shawn Michaels

So, I wouldn't say it was the deepest roster of all time. That goes (unquestionably in my opinion) to the invasion era, and the year right after it.
But, those years weren't as good. Potential huge angles and storylines were blown. They were a dissapointment creatively, but they were definitely amazing for match quality and depth of roster.


2000 is probably the most solid year all-around in the WWF's history.
The first half of 2001 was just as good, if not better, but then it went to shit.

[Jeritron]

So yea, I dunno. I'd give the roster award to 01-02, but I'd take 2000 over it anyday

[Londoner]

The beginning of 2000 was when I started watching, so i'm slightly biased, but yeah its certainly one of the greatest years of the WWF. The roster was perfect, the talent they had was used brilliantly, these days Vince just doesn't have the same passion I think.

[Mooияakeя™]

Yes, I 100% agree. I always say this, but, it seemed like their was a story for everyone. You wasn't just having to keep up with the main event, but there were little branches on this HUGE tree of awesomeness (see even an E&C word creeping in there).

I miss those days, they'll never be back, but I was happy I was here when they were here.

Nowadays they don't even fuckin respect the IC title nevermind write a story around it.

[Jeritron]

Don't forget Rikishi and Chyna from that list of uppermidcarders.
They were both huge stars in 2000.

[Loose Cannon]

good point

yea, 2000 had the best all around booking. More good workers were added in 2001, but the card wasn't booked as good. I think the matches were good and the Invasion storyline wasn't terrible. But given what they had, it coud of been much better

[Jeritron]

That's how I view it now too. It was just dissapointing. From a level field of judgement, it was still very good.
It was better than most angles, and it was better than many time periods in wrestling. We were spoiled to dozens of all-time favorites in the mix together for the first time, having great matches and cutting promos.
Unfortunately, the whole thing was built up in our minds as being so epic, that it fell flat and burned hard.
Also, things had been so well done and epic for several years before that, so there was no real reason to fear it being anything less than monumental.

So yea, now that I'm removed from the situation, and over it, I can watch it and say "Man, this was pretty damn good wrestling"
At the time, and for several years after, that was tough to do because of the immense potential it had creatively.

[Mooияakeя™]

I think that's when I stopped watching WWF, around the time of the invasion. I just became all jaded that Vince had brought WCW. It was like the end was here. and for me it was. I only started briefly watching again in 2006, then more and more as I got HD and a Sky+ box so I can actually catch it now at a time to suit me.

But still, nowhere near on par as the depth they had back then. Yet they could easily do something now.

A tag division would be nice...

[The Fonz]

I first started watching in 1999 when I was 8, so I would say that 2000-2001 was a pretty good card. That might be biased since I though everyone was pretty equal and had the same chance of winning and losing, but the midcard now can't hold a candle to guys like Benoitletsignorehimsowewontseemevenmoreguiltythanwealreadyare, Eddie, Tazz, and Angle.

[Rammsteinmad]

2000 had the best booking.

2002 had the best roster.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Loose Cannon good point yea, 2000 had the best all around booking.

I'm not sure if I agree with this.

I would argue that the WWE were at their best (booking wise) in 1998. Even though Austin was the clear cut mega star during this time, so many others stars were elevated during "Austin's era." The Rock, Mankind, and Kane all became established main-eventers. Undertaker was already there, and Triple H was on his way.

My biggest beef in 2000, was that The Rock and Triple H were really the only guys that dominated.

Furthermore - instead of using Chris Jericho's star power to elevate him to main-event status (i.e. having him go over Angle and Benoit convincingly), they used Jericho's star power to put Benoit and Angle over instead (despite the fact that neither of those men, particularly Benoit, had the potential that Jericho had in terms of drawing power).

Although 2000 was a great year for the WWE, I would argue that 1998-Summer of 1999 was a cooler time period....due to the fact that more wrestlers "knew their role", did their jobs (without complaint), while the glass ceiling was very low.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Rammsteinmad 2000 had the best booking. 2002 had the best roster.

Disagree on both accounts.

I would argue that

1998 was the best booked, while 2000 was the best roster.

Remember - quantity is not quality. In 2002, the WWE had a lot of QUANTITY...but the quality had deterioated (sic) . Most of the guys that were brought in from WCW and ECW had already reached their peak, and were well past their prime.

In 2000 however, the WWE had tons of 'newer' guys with untapped potential for main-eventing one day (i.e. Jericho, Benoit, Angle, Edge, etc.)

In 1998 - the WWE did an excellent job of elevating their talents. The Rock, HHH, Mankind, and Kane were all elevated....3 of 4 of which, won the world title (and the other, Triple H, being well on his way).

In 2000 however - the WWE pissed away a golden opportunity to elevate Jericho. The WWE also missed a golden opportunity to elevate Angle during the Angle-Stephanie-HHH fiasco.


This is why I feel that 2000 was the best card while 1998 was the best booked.

[Jordan]

I think WWE's roster throughout the decade has just gotten better, and when they lose somebody to whatever reason they always find a way to fill the spot. I mean can you really think of a better top roster than what we have now? HBK, Undertaker, Jericho, Triple H, Orton, Batista, Cena, CM Punk, The Hardy's, Shelton, MVP, Kennedy, blah blah blah you know who's there. It's a really great roster right now is my point.

[Juan]

1998-1999 were good years, but the booking wasn't that *great*

I can remember being pissed at all the count out and DQ finishes

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Juan 1998-1999 were good years, but the booking wasn't that *great* I can remember being pissed at all the count out and DQ finishes

As opposed to all the non-clean finishes that we saw between The Rock and Triple H in 2000? Or the fact that Benoit, Angle, and Jericho only went over guys like Rocky and Hunter with massive help of some kind?

Or the fact that the WWE completely pissed away Jericho despite having a golden opportunity to making him *almost* as big as The Rock (not even exaageration here).

I actually think that the booking in 1998 (and even 1999) was ingenius (sic?)

• The WWE successfully elevated The Rock, Triple H, Mankind, and Kane (and even if Kane only won the title once in 98', the guy was still successfully pushed as a major legitimate threat)
• Guys like Bossman, Test, Shamrock, etc. all generated tremendous heel heat due to their association with Vince McMahon and the corporation. The WWE did a masterful job of getting very ordinary guys over during this era. Despite a medicore level of talent, the mid-card here were phenomenally.
• Guys like D'Lo Brown, Owen Hart, and Jeff Jarret were drawing spectacular heel heat
• Almost every single mid-card guy in the WWE at this time was 'over' with the fans and had some kind of memorable or 'unique' gimmick whether it was Goldust, Val Venis, Gangrel, Al Snow, Mideon (ok...he was 1999), etc., etc.
• The Nation vs. DX feud was the PERFECT example of how mid-card wrestlers and mid-card stables can be elevated.

Guys like Steve Austin, Undertaker, and Owen Hart were tremendous lockerroom leaders and did a great job of keeping everyone's ego in check (I would argue that in 2000, Triple H's backstage power started to get out of hand....whether it was Triple H's fault, or whether it was the WWE's fault for allowing him to ascend to such power).

2000 may have been the best year in the WWE in terms of quality, but I'd argue that the booking and storyline characters of 1998 and 1999 was what set the foundations for it......and ultimately resulted in WCW getting blown out of the f'cking water.

[Impeccable]

Originally Posted by The Fonz Benoitletsignorehimsowewontseemevenmoreguiltythanwealreadyare

Saw that and thought of E&C;

"Chris Benoit is here and he's really mad...Chris Benoit is here and he's really angry!"

[Juan]

Originally Posted by Hunter Heyman Hindu As opposed to all the non-clean finishes that we saw between The Rock and Triple H in 2000? Or the fact that Benoit, Angle, and Jericho only went over guys like Rocky and Hunter with massive help of some kind?

I think there's a difference between a heel cheating and there being a DQ in 90% of the matches on Raw. I was watching a Raw from 1998 a few weeks ago and there was only ONE clean finish on the whole shot.

I didn't really bother with the rest of your post, but my point is that the booking in 1998 was far from perfect.

[Krimzon7]

This card was the card that won the Monday Night War. That in itself makes it the greatest card ever in a sense. Everything after that is the result of ECW/WCW's collapse, and WWF/E being the only place to work and earn a solid paycheck.

[Jeritron]

If you look at it that way, then the late 1998-1999 card won the Monday Night War. That's when they went on top permanently and by a huge margin, became a massive cultural success, and everything after that was WCW collapsing while the WWF piled it on.

[Ben Rodrigues]

Where's the 1997 love? Stone Cold Steve Austin was getting over huge, USA vs Canada, D-Generation X (the best version), Hart Foundation, Nation, gang wars, excellently booked main event scene, realistic storylines, Bret vs Austin, classic promos. The best WWF/E year ever.

[Loose Cannon]

I agree with you that 1997 had the best main event booking I personally had ever seen. And I'm going to include the Harts, DX, and Taker in there

But the undercard had a lot of flaws outside of Austin, Kane and Foley and the Outlaws

[McLegend]

You would know it better then I, but WWF in the 80's had to have better cards.

[Batista03]

If they could put some of the big name stars from the roster today on the ones in the attitude years it would be awsome. Cause back then you had more belts and with the 4 shows they have going they would have some great ratings. You add Batista, Orton, Cena, Evan, MVP, Cryme Tyme and so on. With the 4 shows a week; that card would be great. They would just need some of the old titles to spread out through the shows and if you add Sting to lol.

[Casey Jones]

I think people in this thread seriously need their heads examined. I am really starting to question the intelligeance of this forum, and am now wondering as to whether I should keep posting here. Luckily for you guys however, I think I will. It is my hope and vision that I can bring some intelligeance back to this section of the forum.

The greatest card of the WWE was 2003.....by far.

Stop. Re-read that sentence again.

In 2003, the WWE had the following wrestlers:

-Steve Austin
-Triple H
-The Rock
-Goldberg
-Hulk Hogan
-Brock Lesnar
-John Cena
-Randy Orton
-Dave Batista
-Kurt Angle
-Undertaker
-Chris Jericho
-Chris Benoit
-Eddie Guerrero
-Dudleys
-Edge
-Christian
-Booker T
-Scott Steiner
-Kevin Nash
-Shawn Michaels
-Rob Van Dam

2003 was far and away the deepest collection of talent for the WWE, and I'll be damned if any moron on here tells me otherwise.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by Ben Rodrigues Where's the 1997 love? Stone Cold Steve Austin was getting over huge, USA vs Canada, D-Generation X (the best version), Hart Foundation, Nation, gang wars, excellently booked main event scene, realistic storylines, Bret vs Austin, classic promos. The best WWF/E year ever.

[Casey Jones]

This thread isn't about which year was "the best" you idiot.

The question in this thread asked (Was the roster during 2000 the deepest card ever?).

The correct answer was not 2000. It was 2003...for the reasons that I mentioned.

If you can contribute construtively to this thread, then I suggest that you don't post at all.

[Sting Fan]

You really do have your head stuck right up your arse dont you???

Everywhere I go atm your there spreading your own brand of know all knowledge.

Its a forum, people voice there opinions. If you dont like it go start a conversation with yourself on MSN and then you can be right all the time and bask in your own glory.

[Casey Jones]

Originally Posted by Sting Fan You really do have your head stuck right up your arse dont you??? Everywhere I go atm your there spreading your own brand of know all knowledge. Its a forum, people voice there opinions. If you dont like it go start a conversation with yourself on MSN and then you can be right all the time and bask in your own glory.

People can have opinions all they want, but it better be backed by solid facts.

I just think its selfish for misinformed people to be passing off misinformed opinions that ultimately mislead the public.

[Sting Fan]

Your pushing your opinion as fact.

You have an opinion so does he, however you are stating yours is correct

The correct answer was not 2000. It was 2003...for the reasons that I mentioned.

.

This is your opinion, an opinion which to many on here you will find doesnt mean shit.