PWInsider - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE



By Mike Johnson on 2017-08-12 10:00:00


Mike Bennett and Maria debut cold on a b-show PPV talking segment and then aren't even on the following Smackdown... does Vince actually want new talent to get over? It sure as hell doesn't seem like it. And Mike and Maria are just one the way, has anyone seen Tye Dillinger lately...

I would agree their use has been puzzling, to say the least.  The usage of Tye Dillinger, unless there's some sort of issue we aren't aware of, is sobering.  Hopefully they all recover from what's been pretty haphazard usage thus far in their runs on the Smackdown brand.

So on Smackdown 6 guys beat the holy crap out of each other with ladders to earn a shot at the title... on raw, Roman reigns schedules an announcement for himself where he declares himself the next contender for raws title... why should I care about any title in WWE when all one really has to do is call dibs on the next shot? Wins and losses allegedly don't matter in wwe as long as the story is good... well that is a sad excuse for a creative story.

 You just said why - there are times guys beat the "holy crap" out of each other to earn  a title shot because it means so much to them to get the belt.  That's why.  Of course, that's not always the case and we are never going to have 100% perfect creative because the whims of the person involved will always change.  I would agree that there needs to be some prestige, across the board, put into the belts and why title shots are important.

Do you think it comes off as a little bit desperate for attention that WWE sends championship belts to people who win other championships? I get it; it's a good way for WWE to attach themselves to a largely celebrated victory and to get a rub from publicity. But it comes off as cheesy, not only to people seeing it, but maybe even to the players themselves. If I won the Stanley Cup or NBA title, I'm posing, taking pictures, and fighting for time from my teammates to hold the Cup, not play with the WWE title. Conversely, no other sports franchise sends replicas of their top prize to other organizations when they win. Imagine if the NBA trophy was sent to an NFL Super Bowl winning team. The NBA trophy would mean nothing to them. Additionally, it would dilute the actual championship if there were multiples out there. So the WWE belt comes off as a toy given to others to celebrate with in a (at best) secondary light. If wrestlers bust their asses to win the top WWE belt, and an NHL or NBA team gets one for not doing anything in the wrestling world, what kind of message does that send to the fans and wrestlers.

You underestimate how many athletes are legitimate WWE fans.  I see it as WWE getting themselves some publicity while also paying tribute to the teams' accomplishments.  Remember, this all started because a football team was passing a WWE replica belt to the MVP of the game every week.  I think you are seeing something I've always thought was a cool idea and not seeing it for a silly, fun lark it is.  That's fine, but I think most people see it for what it is - just that lark.

When CM Punk was leaving the WWE after his Money in the Bank title match against John Cena, was he given the title match before he told management he was leaving, or after? If it was the latter, why would the WWE put him in the title picture if he was going to be gone afterward? Was the WWE expecting to have things worked out? Was the WWE trying to give Punk an incentive to stay by giving him the title? And lastly, if I remember correctly, WWE and Punk worked things out the day of the PPV for Punk to stay. That would explain him even getting the title since he wasn't leaving. But was he under a new contract immediately? Why did they bring him back only months after he left?

Punk's deal was expiring.  They wanted him to wrestle Cena.  He signed an extension in order to do the match.  They negotiated a new deal and came to terms the day of the show.  Had it they not come to terms, Punk would have lost and left.  The original idea was that Punk, after winning the belt, would disappear.  They would crown a new champion and Punk would return, claiming he was the true champ.  This was to build to a big rematch with Cena, but then WWE decided to rush him back and the storyline was extremely truncated.

Was the whole Matt Hardy, Edge, and Lita love triangle a work or shoot? It is my understanding that it was real, but turned into a work when the WWE made it into a storyline. And if I remember correctly, Matt Hardy was let go, then brought back when WWE made it a work. Was Hardy really let go at the time or was that a work too?

100% legit.  Hardy was fired and then brought back when his 90 day no compete was about to expire as the company decided they could do something with the situation, which played out on camera.  Fans chanting for Hardy and giving Edge and Lita such harsh treatment led to that decision.  At the time, it was expected that Hardy would go to TNA, but WWE decided to bring him back instead.

If you enjoy you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more, right now for THREE DAYS free by clicking here!