Sunday, April 14

WWE Ruthless Aggression: Unpopular Reddit Opinions

Over the years, we have seen many changes in WWE‘s product, divided into different eras, such as the Golden Era, New Generation Era, Attitude Era, Ruthless Aggression Era and PG Era. The Ruthless Aggression Era is a popular era of WWE, which featured some of the company’s best years.



Related

10 Unpopular Opinions About The Attitude Era, According To Reddit

Reddit is a place full of strong opinions, with the platform having several unpopular opinions about WWE’s wildly successful Attitude Era as well.

It was introduced in 2002, lasting until 2008. The era is loved by the fans, and they can’t stop talking about on different online platforms. Reddit is one such platform where people discuss wrestling. People on Reddit have some unpopular opinions about the Ruthless Aggression Era, and here are 10 such opinions.


It Is Better Than The Attitude Era

A User Thinks The Ruthless Aggression Era Was The Better Era, Despite Growing Up With Attitude Era

Ruthless Aggression Cropped (1)

  • The Ruthless Aggression & Attitude Eras Are Often Compared
  • The Attitude Era Is Widely Considered As The Best WWE Era
  • Some People Think Ruthless Aggression Era Was Better


When people talk about WWE’s best Era, The Attitude Era is what comes to people’s minds. WWE was most popular during the Attitude Era, and it was overall very entertaining. Some of the biggest storylines and matches in WWE’s history were part of the Attitude Era. However, some people prefer the Ruthless Aggression Era over the Attitude Era

Related

Attitude Era: 5 Ways It Was Better Than The Ruthless Aggression Era (& 5 Ways RA Was Better)

The WWE has had a lot of memorable eras, and the Attitude Era and Ruthless Aggression were two of the best. Here’s 5 reasons why each are superior.

One such user, u/Peeka789 thinks the Ruthless Aggression Era is the better one. Although this user grew up with The Attitude Era, he considers SmackDown 2002-2003 to be peak WWE, and believes the Ruthless Aggression Era had better wrestling, as the Attitude Era relied more on explosive dramatic moments. While it is true that wrestling was better in the Ruthless Aggression Era, the Attitude Era is arguably more iconic and an overall better package.

It Is An Overrated Era

A User Considers The Ruthless Aggression Era To Be WWE’s Worst Era

The members of Evolution holding title belts at Armageddon


  • The Ruthless Aggression Era Is Highly Praised By Fans
  • It Featured Some Big Stars And Had Many Memorable Feuds
  • Many Fans Even Consider It To Be The Best WWE Era

The Ruthless Aggression Era is very popular among WWE fans. People consider it to be of high quality, and some even consider it as WWE’s best era. It is certainly up there, as WWE’s product was pretty consistent during the era. Overall, it is a very memorable era, and fans still go back and watch stuff from that time.

However, a user u/GreenSauce2 thinks otherwise, and considers the era to be extremely overrated. He believes most of the talent wasn’t good, and WWE got lazy with the product, producing boring storylines. While the era may have produced some bland storylines, it was pretty good for most part, and the roster was quite stacked.


The Stars Of The Ruthless Aggression Era Are More Mainstream Than Those Of The Attitude Era

Batista and John Cena Royal Rumble Botch

  • WWE Was Most Popular During The Attitude Era
  • Steve Austin And The Rock Were The Top Stars Of The Attitude Era
  • They Are Among The Most Popular Wrestlers Ever

As mentioned previously, WWE was at the peak of its popularity during the Attitude Era. The top two stars of the era were Steve Austin and The Rock were extremely popular among the casual fans. Other top stars like The Undertaker, Mick Foley, and Triple H were also huge in popularity.

u/ark_anold thinks that the stars of the Ruthless Aggression Era were more popular in the mainstream, and will be more remembered, as compared to the stars of the Attitude Era. He feels guys like John Cena, Batista, Rey Mysterio have grown to be more relevant. While these stars are definitely very popular in the mainstream, few people can come close the popularity of The Rock and Steve Austin.


Triple H’s Reign Of Terror Was Actually Good

A User Liked Triple H’s Reign Of Terror

  • Triple H Held The World Heavyweight Title 5 Times From 2002-2005
  • This Period Is Called The Reign Of Terror
  • Many Wrestlers Suffered During This Time

Triple H was among the top stars during the Ruthless Aggression. He was the inaugural World Heavyweight Champion in WWE, and held the title 5 times from 2002 to 2005. This period is famously called the ”Reign of Terror”, and is disliked among most fans.

Related

10 Things You Forgot About Triple H’s Reign Of Terror

Triple H’s reign of terror is reviled by most fans, and there’s a lot you probably forgot about it.

According to u/AEWPunk525 though, his Reign of Terror was actually good. While it can be argued that Triple H put over Batista at the end, many other stars like Booker T and Rob Van Dam suffered during the period. Triple H was always the focus of Raw, and fans were tired of seeing the same thing every week, and the dislike for the Reign of Terror is justified.


The Shorter Title Reigns During The Era Made For Better Television

A User Thinks WWE Was Better Off With Shorter Title Reigns

Edge WWE Champion New Year's Revolution 2006 Cropped

  • The Ruthless Aggression Era Had Some Short Title Reigns
  • Over The Years, We Started Seeing Fewer Title Changes
  • Longer Title Reigns Make The Titles Prestigious

During the Attitude & Ruthless Aggression Eras, title changes were frequent, and thus resulted in some short title reigns. As we entered into the new era, WWE started having fewer title changes, and longer reigns. A longer title reign is better, as it helps people get invested in the champion.

A now deleted user shared a different perspective on this, as he believed shorter title reigns made for better TV. According to him, it ensured unpredictability, and made for more exciting title matches. The element of surprise is definitely gone with longer title reigns, but it makes the title more prestigious, and makes the eventual title change more meaningful.


WrestleMania 19 Was Better Than WrestleMania 17

A User Considers WrestleMania 19 Superior To WrestleMania 17

  • WrestleMania 17 Was Held During The Attitude Era, And Was A Great Show
  • It Is Widely Considered As The Best WrestleMania Ever
  • WrestleMania 19 Was Held During The Ruthless Aggression Era, And Was Great Too

WrestleMania is WWE’s biggest show of the year. Thus, WWE puts a lot of effort into the show, and we see some of the best matches of the year at ‘Mania. Over the years, we’ve seen many amazing WrestleManias, with WrestleMania 17 being the one widely considered as the best ‘Mania ever. It was a legendary event, featuring great matches like The Rock vs. Steve Austin, TLC Triple Threat Tag Team match, Shane McMahon vs. Vince McMahon, etc.


Related

The 10 Best WrestleMania PPVs, According To Ranker

Which WrestleMania pay-per-view have fans on Ranker voted on as the best in WWE history?

Contrary to the popular opinion, a now deleted user thinks WrestleMania 19 was a better show than ‘Mania 17. According to the user, ‘Mania 19 offered a better overall show, and the lows of ‘Mania 17 were lower. WrestleMania 19 is also a great show, but its undercard was a bit weaker than WrestleMania 17’s, and had lows like the match between Triple H vs. Booker T. Thus, despite being an amazing show, ‘Mania 19 feels somewhat inferior to 17.

Victoria Was The Best Female Wrestler At The Time

A User Considers Victoria As The Best Female Wrestler During The Era

  • Victoria Was One Of The Top Female Wrestlers During The Ruthless Aggression Era
  • She Was A Talented Wrestler, And Won The WWE Women’s Championship Twice
  • Trish Stratus And Lita Are Considered Superior To Her


The women’s division during the Ruthless Aggression Era wasn’t as good as it is today, but was definitely an upgrade from the Attitude Era. We saw many talented female wrestlers during the era, and had some memorable feuds and matches. Among the lot, Trish Stratus and Lita are widely considered as the best.

A user u/Effective-Current-96 found Victoria to be the best female wrestler, even better than Trish and Lita. He considered her very smooth in the ring, and that she deserved to be honored more by WWE. Victoria was definitely talented and among the top female wrestlers during the era, but putting her over Trish and Lita is a very bold statement, sheerly due to their impact.

The Ruthless Aggression Era Had The Best Roster

A User Thinks WWE Had Its Most Stacked During The Ruthless Aggression Era

Ruthless Aggression era roster


  • Many Fans Consider The Attitude Era & Golden Era Had Better Rosters
  • All Wrestlers On The Roster Were Over During Those Eras
  • The Ruthless Aggression Era Also Had A Stacked Roster

Since the beginning, WWE has always had a pretty stacked roster, full of talented individuals. The Golden Era and The Attitude Era had some of WWE’s most iconic wrestlers ever, and overall the best roster ever in WWE history.

However, u/Infamous-Historian81 believes it was the Ruthless Aggression Era which had the best roster. The Ruthless Aggression Era produced many stars too, but the overall roster feels kind of inferior to the other eras. Pretty much everyone on the roster of the Golden & Attitude Eras was over with the fans, and that gives those eras the edge.

The Brand Split Was A Bad Idea

A User Thinks The Brand Split During The Era Was One Of The Worst Ideas By WWE

Original Brand Split Ric Flair and Vince McMahon


  • WWE Introduced A Brand Split In 2002
  • The Wrestlers Became Exclusive To Either Raw Or SmackDown
  • It Lasted Throughout The Ruthless Aggression Era

When WWE purchased WCW in 2001, its roster became huge. There were way too many wrestlers, and WWE wasn’t able to make use of everyone properly. Thus, WWE came up with a brand split in 2002, where wrestlers would be exclusive to either Raw or SmackDown. Fans liked the idea, as more wrestlers were pushed, and the two shows, Raw and SmackDown, felt different from each other.

Related

10 Things You Forgot About WWE’s First Draft In 2002

The 2002 draft changed everything for WWE with the birth of SmackDown, and there’s a lot that fans should know about it.

However, some fans also criticized the brand split. One such user, u/MegGoesToSharkCamp considers the brand split to be one of the worst ideas in wrestling. He believes that it drove away the Attitude Era fans, as it thinned the mid-card, killed title prestige, and created a crowded main event. The brand split did last longer than it should’ve had, but it was necessary at the start, and helped create a better product.


Raw Was Better Than SmackDown During The Ruthless Aggression Era

A User Preferred Raw Over SmackDown

John Cena & Chris Jericho v Christian & Tyson Tomko Raw June 13, 2005 Cropped

  • Raw & SmackDown Felt Different Due To The Brand Split
  • Raw Was Promoted As The A-Show By WWE
  • SmackDown Was More Consistent, And Liked More By Fans

As mentioned in the previous entry, WWE had a brand split during the Ruthless Aggression Era. As a result, Raw and SmackDown had different stories to offer. Raw was promoted as the A-show, and was more popular, but fans considered SmackDown to be better in quality.

u/kingajeezy was more of a Raw fan though, especially from 2004 to 2006. The user enjoyed Raw more, and would just read the spoilers of SmackDown. While Raw was better than SmackDown in some years and had a more star-studded roster, SmackDown was definitely the more consistent brand, and had better matches and storylines.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.