PWInsider - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE



By Dave Scherer on 2018-01-02 10:00:00

You can send us questions for the Q and A at

I know a lot of people don't appreciate Michael Cole as an announcer but since Elias came on the scene, Cole has dropped a lot of Bruce Springsteen reference.  How can people not like that?

I am with you, anyone that loves the Boss can’t be all bad!  Seriously, Cole is a huge Springsteen fan (as am I) and has attended a LOT of his shows (as have I).  I love his obscure Bruce references and get every single one of that he makes.  I am glad he can have fun with it.  As for Cole, I think to some he gets a bad rap.  Kind of like Roman Reigns did when he won the Royal Rumble instead of Daniel Bryan, I think a lot of hardcore fans hold a grudge against Cole for replacing Jim Ross and they aren’t fair with appreciateing how good Cole is.  He is an excellent play by play man and he delivers the vision of the product that Vince McMahon wants him to deliver.

Here's what I don't get. Some time ago, VKM set up Raw and SD with commissioners and GM's. and they were supposed to duke it out to see who was better. So how could Shane say that if Owens & Zayn lost, they would be gone from all of WWE. I would think that if Shane were to fire those two, then Stephanie would pick them up, just to aggravate Shane, if not for other reasons. But I guess that is just Creative at work again.

It’s been extremely well established that using logic is optional in WWE.  And in that case they did actually make an explanation but you are correct though.  As I have said many times, they need a logic/storyline editor.  Most of the faux pas that they make are very easily corrected.

Why is Buff Bagwell delusional in blaming Jim Ross for his failure in WWE? Why doesn’t he realize it was his crappy WCW reputation and even more crappy WWE attitude were the reasons for his failure?

Frankly, I laughed when I saw him blame Jim Ross.  He was let go because WWE had no interest in him and he didn’t show them anything that made them change their mind.  If memory serves, and don’t quote me on this, he got a shot because Vince McMahon mentioned names of WCW guys on TV and Bagwell got a pop, so Vince brought him in for a tryout.  At that point, it was on Buff to impress them and he didn’t.  

With WWE's PG rating,  being a publicly traded company, and marketing geared largely towards kids and young teens, the likelihood of returning to an edgier style like what we saw in the Attitude Era are slim to none.  If for some reason McMahon decides to completely revert back to that Attitude Era style, what would the extent of the repercussions be in terms of sponsorship loss?  How ticked off would it make the TV networks, and would the networks do anything about it?

Vince couldn’t make that change without NBC Universal’s blessing.  They have a lot of say in what the WWE product is.  For example, the reason that there is a third hour of Raw is because they want it.  As for sponsors, yes that change would cost them money.  Companies like Mattel don’t want to be associated with things that they find to be raunchy.

Thank you for the BEST (ie. ONLY) site to get accurate info about pro wrestling! My questions are about ring size: how large is the WWE ring?  Back when I watched WCW, the WWF(E) ring always appeared a bit larger to me. Is there pro wrestling industry standard size? 

You are correct sir.  WWE uses a 20 x 20 foot ring.  WCW used at 18 x 18 foot ring.  Thanks for the kind words!

You can send us questions for the Q and A at

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!