PWInsider - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE

 
 

TAKER AT MANIA, WHY NOT GIVE THE WWE TITLE TO BROCK, TRIPLE H-BRET HARTAND MORE

By Dave Scherer on 2013-02-13 09:59:00

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

Love the site! In a previous Q&A you responded that it would not be a good idea to book Brock with a long title reign because your champion would not be on TV for long periods of time due to the limited dates in his contract. Why doesn’t the idea of limited TV appearances work? You have three champions that are on TV all the time now. Having one of two heavyweight champions only on TV occasionally to hype PPV events seems like it would add a special “big match” feel that attracts buys every time that champion appears on PPV. A mouthpiece such as Heyman and pre-taped segments can keep feuds going in-between appearances. Your thoughts?

On last week's Raw, both the IC and US champs lost matches to guys that, after beating them, didn't even care to say "I want your title".  Why?  Because those two belts have been booked not to matter.  John Cena, when given his choice of the title he wants to go for at WrestleMania, basically told us that the World Title doesn't matter.  Creative has booked the WWE Title as being THE belt.  Yeah, you could have Heyman represent Brock but it's just not the same thing to me.  Given that WWE needs to draw ratings, I just think they need their champion on TV every week.

What is the injury that may prevent Undertaker from going at WrestleMania this year? It must be pretty serious if he's had a year since his last match and still can't go.

All we have heard is that earlier this year he thought he could go and when he started training he wasn't so sure he could.  Last year, his shoulder was in really bad shape but he was able to go.  At his age (almost 48) and after all of the years he has put in, there is wear and tear that is harder to overcome.  Plus, he only wants to work if he can have a match that he is proud of, so that plays into it as well.

In the event the Undertaker can't go at WrestleMania, what would you think of him still making an appearance? He could still do his big entrance, could give a brief speech about being near the end of a long road (hinting retirement), and could even go so far as to do his tribute pose by dropping to one knee and raising his hand, only to be suddenly interrupted by the Shield? They could give him the big beatdown and spend the next year talking about being the only ones who could put away the Phenom, giving them enough time to really build the characters and giving them instant major heel heat. This would give Taker another year to try and get better, and have a blowout retirement match at Wrestlemania 30 with one of the Shield members. For me, I'd love it to be Dean Ambrose, there is a maniacal look in his eyes that just can't be taught, he definitely has the look and feel of a major heel to me. Also, if Taker does a retirement match at WM 30, do you think it would be good to bring Paul Bearer back one more time?

Personally, I think if Taker isn't going to wrestle, he shouldn't appear.  Given the way creative works, I don't know that they could keep The Shield strong for a year (though I hope they can).  I think it would be better to wait until Mania gets closer, see how Taker is doing and then go from there.  The beat down angle would be better on TV anyway, since more people would see it live.  And if Taker ever does a retirement match, Paul Bearer absolutely needs to be a part of it. Absolutely.

Do you think it's finally time for WWE to go back to more interesting PPV names that aren't just the name of a stipulation match? Not that I ever really liked the name changes, but they seem to have gotten less and less relevant. The named match isn't even always the main event anymore: look at Elimination Chamber, where there are now three matches that are arguably more important than the actual Chamber match. The main event at TLC was a ladder match. Punk vs. Ryback made no sense as a Hell in a Cell match. And Money in the Bank used to seem so much more important as a WrestleMania match. Will they maybe phase out the event names for 2014 now that they seem to be relaxing from what seemed like the "everything literal" attitude they had at the "height" of the PG era?

It definitely is goofy when they name PPVs like that and they aren't the main events.  It does come across as dopey.  And it makes no sense for guys to have their first or early match as a Cell match either.  But I have always felt that if the booking leading up to the show was good enough, the name of the show doesn't matter that much.  Good booking can overcome a bad name.

I know Bret Hart and HHH don’t get along, but they do have a better relationship now that Bret and Shawn get along (or so I thought). Is there any way Bret’s recent comments are a work for an upcoming fued with HHH? I know Bret cant wrestle and HHH hardly ever wrestles, but I was thinking this could be a way to set up something for WrestleMania, like maybe if Undertaker doesn’t work it. I also know Bret says what he thinks and doesn’t hold back, so I am probably reading way too much into this and this is wishful thinking since he is my alltime favorite and I would love to see him more involved in WWE. I also want to say I would have ordered Royal Rumble if I had known Bret was going to be there! Why they keeps things under wraps like that is beyond me.

I don't see it leading to any feud.  I just think it's how Bret feels about HHH.  And I don't blame them for making Bret a surprise.  People expect them at the Rumble and to me, it's a reward to people who pay to see the show! 

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