View Poll Results: What was the best Wrestlemania of the New Gen?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Wrestlemania IX - Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas

    0 0%
  • Wrestlemania X - MSG, New York

    7 70.00%
  • Wrestlemania XI - Civic Center, Hartford

    0 0%
  • Wrestlemania XII - Arrowhead Pond, Anaheim

    1 10.00%
  • Wrestlemania XIII - Rosemont Horizon, Chicago

    2 20.00%
Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,753

    What was the best Wrestlemania of the 'New Gen' era?

    I started these off way back when and forgot to carry on with it. So we did the Hogan era one first of, and Wrestlemania III won it by a couple of votes, though there were some other shows that did quite well too. But let's carry it on. What was the best Wrestlemania of the 'New Gen' era?

    Obviously opinion is divided as to when it started and ended, but I'm going to go with these five events as being part of it.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,006
    It'll be a controversial vote, but I'm going WM13. It's a terrible Mania overall, but Hitman vs Austin is SOOOO f'n good that I'll choose putting up with the rest of the card over the other shows.

  3. #3
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,564
    I think it's hard to beat 10, especially since the pickings are a bit slim on many of the other shows. Favorite individual match was definitely Bret vs. Austin, but the combo punch of Bret vs. Owen and Michaels vs. Razor is hard to beat.

  4. #4
    Author of 101 WWE Matches To See Before You Die Samuel 'Plan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    726
    Did I hear someone say New Gen?!

    All of these have some big positives that get terribly, criminally overlooked so I'm going to need to work through some logic on paper here to make my choice I think.

    I love IX in the way you love that one dog of yours that's a bit dafter than the rest. It's dressed up in nonsense and the undercard is a little thin, and it ends on a massive misfire, but there's also some really good solid wrestling in there and what Bret is able to do with Yoko prior to the nonsense I think is actually bloody superb. Great tag between the Steiners and the Headshrinkers too, and the opener ain't half terrible. Safe to say it's not really in for a shot here though.

    X I would imagine is going to prove a favourite in the race. It's definitely the one that has the most generous legacy, historically speaking, and quite possibly for good reason. Like mizfan says, the Ladder and the opener are a hefty two-for that's hard to combat. They shouldn't overshadow the rest though. In isolation the rest might not seem like much but in the context of the storylines as they were running at the time, it's a pretty great card. Savage and Crush had put together a hell of a feud going in, the title tournament I think is a really interesting idea and one that's well executed, in its reason for existing, during the build. Main event is weak though, weaker than the preceding years with a big anti-climactic finish. I do like the conclusion mind - cool character moment with Owen in the aisle way glaring jealously while the roster lift Bret on their shoulders.

    XI is the ugly one I suppose, but people shouldn't sniff at it. A couple of weak matches aren't helped when you're aware of how easily they could have put together a couple of matches that, had they played out as they did on TV on 'Mania instead, would today be considered great I think. But there are still three superbly clever title bouts and a main event that's not just curiously precognitive of XXIV but plays into a couple of character arcs really smartly too - namely Bigelow and DiBiase.

    XII is a tremendous show, but hinges on how you'll respond to the Iron Man Match I think. But if you like that Iron Man Match there's no real weak points here. The opening six man isn't exactly a classic but the sheer visual of Yoko and Vader facing off is enough to satisfy me. It's also got some great window dressing with Owen and Bulldog and a fun little story-driven stipulation attached to it that plays into how effectively done the introductory storyline for Vader was on TV. The Hollywood Backlot Brawl is a massive guilty pleasure, but it also carries a lot of character weight thanks to Goldust and its climax has the crowd going nuts. Austin and Vega is a good old fashioned solid mid card match to round the show out, Warrior and Helmsley is weird but too short to disrupt anything (and is followed with an instigation of a feud between Mero and Helmsley, so serves a purpose) and Taker vs. Diesel is possibly the most horribly undervalued 'Streak Match' going. I also adore the Iron Man Match - a bravura piece of work.

    13 is another one with an unfair bad rap. It's highly indicative of the turning point in history it happened at and you get the best of both New Gen and Attitude in a lot of ways. The main event is a bit tepid, but Bret's rabid interference with Shawn's commentary livens it up. Rocky/Sultan is no less than solid and there's a wild, fun Chicago Street Fight that's right out that 1999 Hardcore mode. Don't underestimate the quality of the Tag title match either. Obviously the Submission Match is where the magic's at...and as it's the greatest match ever wrestled, that's some magic!

    But I think I've talked myself into settling on XII as the only one I can't see having much of a weak point. And it's headlined by a match that's about as purely New Gen as you can possibly get, between the two most immediately identifiable members of the Era, and certainly its two biggest names historically. So yeah. WrestleMania XII.

    But man, I love 'em all!

  5. #5
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,564
    I actually do love that Iron Man match, easily my favorite bout between Michaels and Bret!

    You reminded me that I do have a soft spot for IX. Steiners vs. Headshrinkers really is an underrated match. Not enough for me to vote for it, but still!

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,710
    There's never enough love for the Steiners.

  7. #7
    I think the lack of love for The Steiners has more to do w/ their WWF run not being on par w/ their NWA/WCW runs, though in fairness they only had one yr in WWF. IX match-wise actually wasn't too shabby. It just didn't have any standout matches. XI had Diesel/Michaels and Bigelow/Taylor, which is actually one of the better celeb involved matches in WWE history. Almost said that XII was a one match show but then I remember Undertaker/Diesel. XIII was similar to IX w/ most of the matches not being standout except it had Hart/Austin. Can't see how X isn't the answer w/ Hart/Hart and Ramon/Michaels, which were not only two of the greatest matches in WrestleMania history but WWE history and also one of the greatest openers.

    Twitter: @libsuperstar

  8. #8
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,753
    I don't dislike nine for the quality of the matches, at any point really - even the maligned stuff. It's honestly just that the whole feel of the show, from beginning to end, is just off.

    But yeah, love The Steiners, and agree that the the lack of love is definitely due to that mediocre WWF run, because they weren't much there but they were shit hot in their WCW entirety.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  9. #9
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,564
    I would argue the Steiners had a very good run in the WWF, and it only appears lesser because they were even better in their previous runs. But in the WWF in addition to the Headshrinkers, they had top notch matches with the Quebecers, the Heavenly Bodies, and the Beverly Brothers, plus that rarely discussed but brilliant match with Bret and Owen in January '94. Their feud with Money Inc wasn't half bad either, probably the best in ring stuff Money Inc ever did together.

  10. #10
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,753
    Eh, I dunno. They were a middling babyface team to me, that ended up making less of a mark than the LoD before them, or The Smoking Gunns after. And while you can point to things they did well, it just ain't Steiner level. So that's disappointing.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  11. #11
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,564
    Mileage may vary, I suppose! As usual I'm likely in the minority. When I was watching through '93 in my Heenan viewing, they stood out by a mile to me as soon as they walked in the door!

  12. #12
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,753
    You know, it's probably a thing about judging stuff at the time, versus coming to it a long time later. Back then we were more concerned about how much of a star you come off, how much momentum you seemed to have. Now, it's more about the idea of 'quality', however that's interpreted. Truth is the Steiners probably always had the quality down, but they felt.... smaller, not only than they did in WCW but also smaller than the competing acts in WWF either side of them. They were always the top babyface tag team while they were there, but that was about it. They certainly never measured up to LoD in their first go around, you couldn't see them main eventing as they had in WCW, and you also couldn't see a RAW were they took on the IC and WWF Champs, as Billy and Bart had done in 1996.

    So while mileage might vary, it's also a 'from the position of the observer' kinda deal, I think. Because on paper, of course, there's nothing wrong with anything they did. It just didn't actually work all that well for whatever reason.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  13. #13
    I liken the Steiners to the Brain Busters - very solid but brief run. Also, FWIW, it's probably easier to make impact in the tag ranks than singles unless a talent is a main eventer.

    Twitter: @libsuperstar

  14. #14
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,753
    I think that's right, with the one difference being The Brain Busters were very much working out when the infamous drug test failure derailed them.

    My guess looking back is that The Steiners booking probably made them feel a bit less than they should have been. Babyface team wins the tag titles only to drop it to the heels a couple of days later on a house show? Only to then win it back in similar fashion, but to lose them on a technicality but never avenge it? The whole sequence was hugely confused and didn't mean as much as it should, and in the end I think it was the booking of The Quebecers that shored things up later on. I don't think anyone is going to say they were a better team than The Steiners, but they were used much more effectively and often that's what actually matters in the long run.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  15. #15
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,564
    Dang, I had no idea the perspective on the Steiners at the time was so different than what I experienced! Though the booking around the tag titles was indeed weird, so I can begin to see what you're saying...

    Brief run or not, don't think I enjoyed any act of the period more than the Brain Busters!

  16. #16
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,753
    Purely in the WWE, and very much not helped by them getting used hardly at all in the last six months of their time there.

    That's the difference between them and the Gunns. Not reaching Road Warriors level makes plenty of sense when you know about how popular they were, but the Smoking Gunns trended upwards over their run, going from the midcard to the dominant team (and having the big singles matches towards the end). The Steiners trended down in WWE and up in WCW, which I think shows the difference between the two stints as well as anything else.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  17. #17
    Author of 101 WWE Matches To See Before You Die Samuel 'Plan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    726
    I would champion The Steiners still as an important team in the WWF when they were there - things were so transitional and in flux by the time you get to 1993 I think, while they were transitional and probably did trend downwards, they were also a boon to have when they were there. And their work with the Quebecers was tremendous (but everything with the Quebecers in was).

  18. #18
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,753
    Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. They were still the most important babyface team for a decent spell, back in an era when that still meant something.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  19. #19
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,564
    Hell yeah, let's all show lots of love for the Quebecers!!

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,006
    The Quebecers were standard heels, nothing special. The reason they were "good" is because they were average in a sea of Men on a Mission, Heavenly Bodies, and Bushwhackers. Steiners were the best team, but had their worst career run. It still have twice as good as any other team, though I feel Headshrinkers were underrated.

  21. #21
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,753
    Fairly standard heels over-performing, while The Steiner were megastars under-performing.

    Got a huge amount of time for The Quebecers. I don't know that I think they were brilliant or anything, but I never really need much more than talent who know how to get the right reactions, positioned in the right way, and they were certainly that - which meant they could anchor the tag division for about a year.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  22. #22
    Author of 101 WWE Matches To See Before You Die Samuel 'Plan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    726
    I think the Quebecers were a shot in the arm for a tag division that needed a centre of gravity to orbit around. For the few months they were there, they were regularly having fantastic tag bouts against pretty much anyone, including incidental teams like Marty/Kid. I never used to like them much, but after having watched through every single New Gen Era Raw, and already having seen all of the Era's PPVs, it shone a whole new light on them. Frenetic, creative and action-packed wrestling with a few textbook heel antics thrown in for good measure - what's not to love?

  23. #23
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,564
    I mean let's not get carried away with '93 being the worst run of the Steiners. They were teaming regularly into 1998, after all!

    I'm completely with Plan on the Quebecers. They may have been presented as an average heel team but from all that I've watched they regularly out-performed that label.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •