Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
You can send us questions for the PWInsider.com Q and A by clicking here.
Since Brock Lesnar just came off of a “shoot” fight and Orton just came off of a serious injury, do you think Lesnar will find it difficult to convert back into “working” and not shooting? It’s known that he is quiet stiff anyway – With Orton coming off of a shoulder injury this match has the potential for a bad ending – especially with a trip to suplex city in which the landing is directly on the shoulders – Your thoughts?
While working with a beast like Brock can take a physical toll on the opponent, Lesnar knows how to work vs. how to shoot. I don’t see him having any problem. WWE is well aware of how stiff Brock works so if they are putting Orton in there, they must feel good about it.
I apologize for the follow up question but I don't feel Dave Scherer addressed my first question. Heels shouldn't be booked as cowardly? Heels have OFTEN been booked that way. Ric Flair, Ted DiBiase, Tully Blanchard, Randy Savage as Macho King, Honky Tonk Man. All heels who would cheap shot their opponents from behind, call time outs, beg not to be hit when the babyface had the advantage, etc. Today you could argue Miz, Kevin Owens, and Charlotte are booked that way. Unless the heel has been a big guy (IE: Undertaker, Ryback) typical WWE heels have been the same as heels in other feds. Cowardly, backstabbing (IE: BJ Whitmer in ROH) Why does Dave Scherer seemingly have a problem now with something that's been a part of wrestling for ages and is still today?
I will try this again. Good top heels, like Flair and company, cheated because they could. They faked being scared to then deliver a cheap shot. They weren’t actually scared. Flair would beg off, and then nail a guy in the sack. Then laugh about it. He didn’t run away because he was legitimately scared. That is why Dave Scherer has a problem with it, because it’s not how it was done in the past. In the past, the begging off was a small element, not a focal point of the character.
What is with all this wordplay? Commissioner? What is that? I mean, so now each show will have a Commisioner AND a GM? Why? What will be the difference in what each does? And if the GM has to answer to the Commish, then why have a GM at all? Do you understand this? Or is this all just a way so that Shane and Stephanie don't have to show up every week?
We shall find out on Tuesday hopefully. But this isn’t new. Remember, say, Brad Maddox as commissioner for The Authority? It’s the same kind of thing. I am with you though, I don’t think we need all of that kind of dynamic. I think that the authority figures are played out.
Some weeks ago, Shane McMahon cancelled The Highlight Reel, so Dean Ambrose could do The Asylum. So what I want to know is, how, and when, did The Highlight Reel make it back? Or is there the typical non-explanation?
Back in May, Stephanie canceled the Asylum and gave Jericho the Highlight Reel back.
So let's say that it turns out that Brock Lesnar did in fact fail a USADA test. If the Undertaker is good for another match, couldn't WWE make lemonade out of the situation? They could have Undertaker come out and demand his loss to Lesnar be stricken from the books or do the asterisk thing. This could be the set up for a final match where the Undertaker gets the loss removed from the books if he wins and has to retire if he loses again. Obviously WWE isn't above using failed drug tests as storylines. Thoughts? Good, bad, or ugly?
I don’t like going down that road at all, not even a little bit. WWE markets to little kids. I don’t think parents would really want their children watching a storyline wrapped around drug use.
You can send us questions for the PWInsider.com Q and A by clicking here.
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!
Bang On Casino
