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&A by clicking here.
I see they're having a tournament to determine the #1 contender for the Intercontinental Title. What is going on with the U.S. Title and if it's so meaningless why not just merge it with the IC belt? Dean Ambrose has had it for almost two years and rarely defends it.
As I type this on Easter, not much. Honestly, I think they should just let it go away. Triple H could just strip Ambrose as part of their storyline. Then we would be back to the top belt for established guys and the IC belt for up and comers. Without the Brand Extension, they don't need the extra titles anymore.
So I was sitting here and remembering that starting around 2008/09, as least in my opinion, for about a 2-3 year period Smackdown was routinely a better and more interesting show than RAW. With that said, I probably haven't watched an entire SD episode since 2012. In trying to figure out why my interest in SD dropped, the one obvious change was the end of the brand extension. At the time I thought that the whole separate titles and alternating PPVs was unnecessary, but now without the brand extension, SD just seems like RAW Lite and easily a missable show. My questions are, (1) do you think Smackdown has suffered from the end of the brand extension, and (2) should Smackdown be retooled or even just canceled, since it's so largely overshadowed by RAW and doesn't seem to have much of an identity or purpose?
It depends on the week. Sometimes it's eh, sometimes it's good. It should always be number two to Raw though. Raw is the flagship. And no, it shouldn't be canceled. It generates millions for WWE!
Just last summer, it looked like Joe Hennig was going to get his chance. Here we are, and it was a push wasn't. My question is, who is to blame for the failure of Curtis Axel? He was a Paul Heyman Guy and a pretty good athlete. But for some reason it never "happened", and it's a shame.
I just don't think he connected they way that they had hoped. I think he is a solid worker, but he didn't break out and that is what you need to do in that spot.
I still think it was reckless for Vince not to tell referee Chad Patton about the result of the Brock-Taker match. I suppose he wanted the ref's expression of shock to be as genuine as can be, but in my opinion, it was insane to let Chad in the dark for one of the greatest finishes in the history of the business, as it opened the door to many possible catastrophic scenarios. Your thoughts? More, are there other known cases of referees not being told of a finish in a major promotion?
Insane? Why? WWE tells the referees to count what they seen. He saw Taker pinned and counted it. The refs in WWE don't always know the finishes.
Is Vince Russo really back in TNA?
As we reported last week, yes he is working as a storyline consultant. John Gaburick has the final say as to whether to use or toss Russo's ideas. It's funny though, not that long ago he did a DVD with our friends with Kayfabe Commentaries where he said he was done with the business. Sure Vince, whatever you say!
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
