After watching Vengeance, I truly believe that WWE is holding back CM Punk. What sense does it make to not give the most over guy in the brand the belt, especially if Benoit wasn't there? Further more if they needed a replacement, why not Burke or Cor Von, not a guy who has been there a week? So do yo u think Punk is being held back?
Here is the problem with Punk and his role. He was first pushed by Paul Heyman in OVW. Then, Heyman brought him up to ECW so he is looked at as a "Heyman guy". Given that Heyman no longer is on the creative team, some still there don't want the association with pushing "Heyman's guy". On top of that, as stupid as this sounds, there are those in the WWE hierarchy who resent Punk's crowd reaction because he was an internet favorite before coming to WWE, as if having the hardcore fans like you is a bad thing. Yeah, all they do is support your product no matter what. So, add those together and you have no one really lobbying for Punk and yes, I think that leads to him being held back. As for pushing Nitro, I have no problem with that. I think he has a ton of potential and luckily for him, he has Dave Lagana behind him so he won't have to worry about not getting any support.
I think John Cena needs to lose that belt.. Thanks to that damn run he's having, things are becoming way way too predictable.. What do you think? I also see great things for Ken Kennedy.. I think he has potential to be an all time great.. Do you still see a world title run in his future any time soon?
Yes, things have been predictable but the flip side is that I also like to see longer title runs because it makes the belt more important. On top of that, you need to have someone credible to flip it to or it isn't a smart move. It doesn't make sense to flip it just to do it. With that said, I can see a change happening fairly soon since Raw's roster is now pretty loaded.
I do see Kennedy becoming a star down the road and definitely could see him having a title run.
I got away from Wrestling for about 8 years and just got back into it. When I stopped watching the WWF/WWE was just starting to have the monthly In Your House PPV's. I remember when you only had 4-5 PPV's per year and each was a well hyped and well produced program. It seems with 1 or even 2 PPV's each month that the WWE is constantly trying to quickly hype storylines in order to draw heat for the monthly PPV. Wouldn't it be better in terms of ratings and the overall quality of the product to go to having a PPV every other month or at least make each PPV branded so that a World Title match at least feels like a big deal and not simply 1 of 3 on the show?
It would definitely be better for overall storyline quality for them to do less shows and spend more time building them up since most of the non-big four PPVs of late have just been thrown together just because they have to put on a show. As for whether it would make them more money, that is hard to say. WWE gets 40% of the gross so on a $40 show, they make 16 dollars. If they do 300,000 buys, they gross almost five million dollars. If you figure that the live gate for the show pays for the expenses of putting it on, that is a good chunk of money. If they went back to four shows, they would have quadruple the buy rate to stay even. I don't see them being able to do that. They would rather hit us every month for a show or two. Now, if buy rates were to drop consistently to under 200,000 buys, they would have to take a hard look at their concept then.
I recently saw a question as to who were the best heels with a World championship run in the WWE, and names such as Yokozuna (who I thought was a great worker and champion), and Triple H were brought up. So, why wasn't Randy Savage considered a great heel during his World Championship reign?
He was by me. The way he treated Miss Elizabeth alone made him a hated heel in the eyes of man. It also made him a beloved hero when he turned babyface.
So I read somewhere on the site that they stacked RAW because of a ratings drop. That being understood, with Orton, Booker, Cena, Lashley, Kennedy and the return of Michaels and HHH do you think RAW is a bit too top heavy? I worry that it'll be even longer until Kennedy gets a shot and that I'll never get to see another reign of King Booker. Also, knowing that WWE has its favorites on RAW, do you think the recent gutting of Smackdown! could make it a fresh show, or a land of opportunity?
Well, Smackdown certainly has the chance to allow young workers to break through since it's been gutted. Whether that will happen or not will be determined. As for Raw, yes I do see it being a little top heavy (as I said above), at least in comparison to Smackdown. It will be very interesting to see how it is booked going forward and also whether some of the wrestlers will be moved to other shows after their runs on Raw start to slow down.
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: HARDY AS CHAMP, TRINITY IN TNA, WHOSE RETURN WOULD MATTER MOST 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!