And we have amateur wrestling as well, it just doesn't play to big crowds in many places. That is part of the problem. Amateur wrestling a niche sport that you really, really have to understand to follow and enjoy. It doesn't translate well to the masses, especially casual fans. Pro Wrestling began in the carnivals and they needed to not only have something that was interesting to the patrons but also something that they could control so that they could plan their shows for the towns that they ran in. Pro wrestling has been worked forever for those reasons.
I've looked ahead, and saw that the November 30 Raw is in Baltimore. That said, do you think WWE would try to invite Stacy Keibler to be guest host? I don't know if it would happen, but it would definitely make my day if she did.
It would make mine too but last I heard, Stacy was living in LA so having Raw in Baltimore wouldn't mean much unless she happened to be home for Thanksgiving. Also, she pretty much lost her taste for the business back when she was doing Dancing With The Stars so I don't expect to see her back any time soon. I just asked someone in WWE about the possibility of this and was told that instead of a tall blonde woman, we will get a short bald man than night: Verne "Mini Me" Troyer.
My question deals with the WWE Divas and TNA Knockouts. Do you think the WWE women's division will ever add great independent women wrestlers like Delirious, Sara Del Ray, Daizee Haze, etc? I know they just added Serena Deeb but it seems like the Knockouts have a leg up on the Divas to me?
I think that they have a better shot at going to TNA. TNA is more committed to using good female workers while WWE likes hot women who may or may not be able work. TNA is definitely the better place for women who can work and want to have good matches.
As the WWE are pushing a PG rating and gearing their product towards children why do they still have Hell in a Cell Matches, TLC Matches and Submission type Matches?. These matches were all traditionally brutal, hard hitting matches resulting in some blood spillage and jaw dropping moments but with the PG rating they can't be anymore. Why change the name of No Mercy to Hell in a Cell and Armageddon to TLC when the Superstars and Creative Team are restricted in what they can do in the matches? It takes away the prestige and history of those matches and that's a real shame. I really enjoyed the Hell in a Cell PPV but didn't understand why they needed the Cells. I bet Mick Foley is laughing his head off right now!
You said it all. It makes no sense to have brutal matches that can't be brutal. In fact, it may actually be ruining the matches for later on down the road if/when WWE lifts the insipid TVPG rating (which I am guessing will happen if Linda McMahon loses her Senate bid). It's just insane.
Is it good for WWE to focus 60 minutes of a PPV on a match we have seen almost 10,000 times (Cena/Orton)? I mean, on a personal level, I won't be ordering it if 1/3 of the PPV is that mess......
I think a lot of people feel like you do. We did a poll last week and the vast majority said having that match made them not want to buy the show. SummerSlam came in under 400,000 buys. I don't know why WWE thinks it's a good idea to do this match but I don't see it having a good effect on the buy rate. Personally, I have zero desire to see it. WWE thinks they are giving the fans a special gimmick but I think to a good chunk of them they are actually giving them a reason to skip the show.
You can send us questions for the PWInsider.com Q&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!