PWInsider - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE

 
 

HOW WWE KILLS ITS OWN GUYS, WHAT IF RANDY ORTON STRIKES OUT, ENDING TAKER'S STREAK, WILL TNA EVER BE AN EQUAL TO WWE AND MORE

By Dave Scherer on 2013-01-22 09:59:00

You can send us questions for the PWInsider.com Q&A by clicking here.

Why not have Kane end The Undertaker streak. It's only justifiable in my opinion, all they given Kane is two BS title reigns and that's it. Plus it would be the end all of end all of their long feud. To me no one is better suited than Undertaker half brother and it would finally put a conclusion on the attitude era. Your thoughts!

For one thing, I think Kane has had a great, Hall Of Fame career for WWE.  I don't see how you can think he was besmirched.  Secondly, I want Taker to retire with the streak in tact.  So, I am on the other side of you on this one.

Will TNA ever become the big rival to WWE the way WCW was during the Monday night wars?

Ever is a long time but I don't see it happening any time in the near future.  WCW had a large following for many years, plus they were owned by a media conglomerate.  TNA doesn't have either of those things going for it.

Do you think it undermines a superstar’s push when he doesn’t actually win matches. Take Cena and Dolph for example. No matter how great the matches are, if Ziggler doesn’t win, the match was in vain. He doesn’t have to win them all and they don’t have to be clean, but at least win one. Superstars need big wins in order to get them to the next level and I feel like, especially with Cena, the feuds are always one sided with the faces always winning, and not only doesn’t it get over the other superstar, but it makes the feud less exciting drawn out at times when the same guy always wins. An evenly booked feud would be more exciting and it gives a reason for the feud to continue, because one person always one ups the other. Your thoughts?

I agree with you completely.  They have totally botched Ziggler.  Cena's domination of him has been ridiculous, much like Sheamus not being able to beat The Big Show was.

It's been speculated for a while that WWE are planning to turn Randy Orton heel and get him involved in a top program within the company. Aren't they taking a big risk considering he already has two Wellness Policy strikes against him? I know they're desperate for new stars so need to keep falling back to the same people but this seems to be a problem. Or would WWE management consider brushing a further fail under the carpet since they brought in the Policy and it's their rules to bend and break?

Keep this in mind, it's their policy so they decide when a guy gets suspended.  If Orton were to fail a third test, they could have him lose the feud he was in definitively before firing him.

Not sure if you noticed on the 20th anniversary RAW but during the segment with Big Show Vince actually used the word "belt" in reference to the World Heavyweight Championship. In the past he has said that "belts are for holding up pants, you carry championships", right? Knowing how taboo that has been in recent years, did Vince just slip up or does this go along the lines of him now allowing the word "wrestler" and referee names back on his TV programming?

They have eased up on the verbiage of late when they go into worked shoot mode.  That is how I saw that comment.

You can send us questions for the PWInsider.com Q&A by clicking here.