I can't see Taker losing to Batista at Wrestlemania 23. To me, by Taker losing to Batista it spits on Taker's legacy. The only way and person I can see Taker losing his Wrestlemania undefeated streak is to Shawn Michaels. Your thoughts?
I agree that Batista is not "special" enough to beat Taker at Mania and kill his very cool legacy. Michaels, however, is since he is a legend in the business and still performing at a top level. With that said though, I love the special aspect of Taker's streak and don't want to see it end. I think it's something that he should retire with.
This has been bothering me a lot and I was afraid to ask these questions because it might sound really stupid. But with the deaths of Bam Bam Bigelow, Mike Awesome and so many great wrestlers that I have watched since 1980, It has to be asked. The NFL, MLB, NBA and the NHL all have unions and have representatives to talk to players about retirement, what to watch out for and where they can go for help. All of these organizations have unions. These wrestlers are human beings too. In my opinion, I think Vince McMahon forgets that. Does WWF/E, TNA-NWA or any former leagues like WCW, AWA or ECW have anyone talk to these wrestlers and let them know that most of them will not be wrestling forever and to be able to prepare for the future? With all of these deaths, Isn't it about time that these wrestlers form a union so they can protect themselves and again prepare themselves for life after wrestling?
The main problem here is that the wrestlers don't have a union to advocate for them. WWE does offer assistance in these kinds of matters while the wrestlers are in their employ and does look take action when they see someone with an obvious problem, but at the end of the day, they (like the other organizations you mentioned) are promoting wrestling shows and they take the stance that the talents are adults and should look out for themselves. I don't entirely agree with that stance, but it is within their rights and it's not unreasonable for WWE to expect adults to act like such. Where I see WWE as being culpable to the talents is due to the fact that not only do they pay them as independent contractors instead of actual employees, but management has also made it very clear that they are completely against the wrestlers organizing a union. To me, if you make it clear that unionizing will be held against the workers, you have to take on more responsibility for them so WWE is definitely not doing all that they can in this area.
Obviously, the fewer title matches there are, it makes title matches seem more special. But on the other hand, the more often a champion defends the title, the more credible a champion he'll be. Ultimately, which is the better way to go? Fewer title defenses or more title defenses?
I think the most important factor is that the belt is respected and treated in a way that makes it important. I agree that the belt shouldn't be defended too often, for the very reason that you stated. I think it's also important that the title matches be built up properly and for them to mean something. Only top tier guys, or people who are about to be elevated, should ever get a match with a champion. In the end, it's about making the title special and that should be the focus.
When Stone Cold turned heel at Wrestlemania X Seven and aligned himself with Vince McMahon, most people said that it was the second most shocking heel turn ever, next to Hogan's 5 years earlier. I understood why the WWF did it, they wanted to shock viewers yet again like they did in their prime, but I noticed that the ratings after Austin turned heel dropped. Do you think that it was a bad idea to do so, or was it still smart to do, even with the declining ratings?
I absolutely think it was. The word at the time was that everyone involved with the decision thought it was the right thing to do because Austin had run his course as the hard-nosed babyface. Personally, I said at the time that I thought it was a mistake and it would fail because the fans didn't want to boo Austin and wouldn't do it. Hell, he became a babyface against Bret Hart, of all people, because the people wanted to cheer him. So, it's no surprise that his heel turn failed.
I have seen a number of candid photos of Torrie Wilson and Stephanie McMahon together. They always seem to be hugging and laughing when photographed together. Are they truly that close in real life or is it just two high profile WWE personalities who end up at the same publicity functions together and put on a happy face?
I have never heard that they were overly close, but I have heard that they were friendly. It's smart business to be friends with one of the owner. On the other hand, Torrie has been really close to Stacy Keibler, even living with her in Los Angeles. But, as far as I know, Torrie and Steph are just friendly.
You can send us questions for the PWInsider.com Q&A by clicking here.
We also have a new Q and A up today on PWInsiderXtra.com titled:
PWINSIDERXTRA Q & A: MICHAELS AND CENA, HOGAN'S DRAWING POWER, UNDERTAKER GIVING THE RUB, WHERE ARE THEY NOW AND MORE
If you are an Elite member of the new site, you can read it by clicking here.
If you are not an Elite member, you can read it by clicking here.
If you are an PWInsider.com Elite member and you want to find out how to join the new site (which is bargain priced at a dollar a month or less, depending on the subscription you choose), click here.
If you would like to become an Elite member to one or both of the sites, you can do so by clicking here.
For PWInsider.com Elite members who are not members of PWInsiderXtra.com, the questions from PWInsiderXtra.com will be archived in our weekly Elite newsletter.
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!