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.
From a storyline/momentum standpoint, is there really any reason to have Smackdown any more? Before the brand extension in 2002, Smackdown felt just as important as Raw in terms of building storylines, raising anticipation for PPVs by being the go-home show, and was always a direct continuation of the Raw that preceded it that week. Nowadays, and especially after the brand extension ended, it feels like nothing more than a slightly beefed up Sunday Night Heat. I mean, a lot of times some of the top guys don't even show up on Smackdown from time to time. It's though you just have to watch Raw to keep up with storylines and character development and forget that Smackdown's even around anymore. Your thoughts?
It is pretty clear that Raw is the straw that stirs the drink for WWE and a lot, if not most, of the time Smackdown is clearly a secondary, missable show. Anything of merit that happens on it is replayed the following Monday on Raw as well. But, they get paid a pretty penny to produce it, so that is the best reason of all to do it.
How much give do the ringside floor mats have? I have a tough time believing a man would land on his back at full velocity after being knocked from the top rope/ladder without getting the wind knocked out of him.
First off, workers are trained to know how to fall. They are not like your average lay man. With that said, the padding helps a little but it's not like it takes all of the impact away. It doesn't feel great, that's for sure.
I see a lot of opinions on TNA being 'WWE lite' which I agree with. The talent they have and the markets they can get into, they should really be providing an alternative. But do you think the problem is, everyone they seem to hire to either book or run the product is pre wwe? Pritchard, Lagana, Big, Russo. All they ever did and learnt was for and from Vince McMahon so they really know no better. Surely some fresh ideas with time to implement ideas opposed to grabbing anyone Vince releases would be the way to go?
Obviously, people go with what they learned along the way and form their view of the business based off of that. But keep in mind that Spike TV also has a say in how the product is presented. They aired WWE in the past so they have a say in what they want to see TNA do as well. And of course, so does Dixie Carter. She sees WWE as the industry leader and wants to be like them. But I have said for years that TNA needs to be different because if people want to see the WWE style product, there are plenty of hours on TV of it every week already.
Following on your logic about not putting the Title on Rob Van Dam because he is a ‘part timer’, do you think a) it was a bad thing for Lesnar to end Taker's streak and b) it would be a bad thing for Lesnar to hold the title?
It all depends on what they do with it. If they use it to elevate a young guy, like Roman Reigns, then it makes sense. And to be fair, Lesnar cuts a lot different swath than RVD or Chris Jericho. he is a monster. I have no problem with them putting the belt on Brock short term but unless he agrees to work more dates, I don't like having a guy that doesn't work house shows as the standard bearers.
What is your take on Big E?
I like him. Whenever they give him a chance to work, he delivers. He is not a great promo, but I think he could be a really good "silent but violent" type of character. I think they could be getting a lot more out of him than they are.
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
