Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
Just recently became an elite member and I have to say you guys do an outstanding job! Well, as for my question is regarding Booker T. Do you see, and/or deserving of a place in the WWE hall of fame? If so would it as a singles star or with his brother, which in my opinion is one of the greatest tag teams I have ever seen. I would love your feed back.
Thanks for the kind words and support. Honestly, I would put Booker in as both a tag and singles guy. I always loved his work and the way that he developed from a tag to a single, much like Scott Steiner did, gets him in on both ends to me. Now, as an announcer? No way I put him in! But hey, no one is perfect.
Do you find it kind of odd that all of a sudden they are now calling her Tamina Snuka? (When Tamina isn't even her real name anyway) And the odd thing to me is that I have never heard them speak
her name without at least mentioning her heritage! So why all of a sudden are the putting her last name in, when everyone already knows who her dad is?
No, I don't. They have acknowledged that she is the daughter of Superfly. Now, if you want to know what I find odd is that even though we know Curt Hennig is his father, we still have a character named Michael McGillicutty.
Regarding the second Undertaker video, does that mean that his hair will not grow back in time for Mania and they use the storyline/video as the explanation for a shorter hair cut?
Yep.
I don't get what happened with Undertaker cutting his hair on Raw. I know it has to do with it not growing back and the wig but I'm talking about story-wise. Why would you not have Triple H lay him out and cut his hair? How is Undertaker cutting his own hair off suppose to get me to want to see him wrestle Triple H? I just think it was a waste. Your opinion?
I definitely think that they could have done more with explaining the fact that Taker cut his hair but I also understand the thought process in keeping the two men away from each other in order to build up interest in their PPV match. WWE has given away so much on free TV over the years that I won't bust them for actually looking to draw PPV dollars for once.
I think we can all pretty much agree that this year's Royal Rumble was a bigger catastrophe than Pearl Harbor. The Rumble match itself, which is almost NEVER boring, was mostly a snoozefest, and I think a big help (though not exactly a flatout cure) would have been to have Randy Orton come out earlier in the match at, say #9 or #10, and last right up the final four. It was in his hometown of St. Louis, and the hometown hero didn't come in until #28 and he lasted less than six minutes. Also, I think Cena and Kane should have been put in the match itself rather than wrestling earlier in the night, that way we would have had two bigger stars in the match and wouldn't have had to resort to dealing with the likes of Michael Cole and Ricardo Rodriguez (although I think we all have to at least be grateful that Hornswoggle wasn't in it this year), nor would we have gotten than abomination of a match that they had earlier in the night. All very simple but effective stuff. So I guess my question is this: How do the WWE writers have jobs and I don't?
You really compared a bad PPV to an event where people were killed? Nope, I can't agree on that one. As for the Rumble, yes it was boring and poorly booked. Orton could have been used better, but to be fair he was coming back from injury. As for your question, WWE writers know how to make Vince McMahon happy. My guess is that you either don't or have never gotten the chance.
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!
Bang On Casino
