PWInsider - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE



By Dave Scherer on 2018-02-26 10:00:00

You can send us questions for the Q and A at

In looking at the Raw ratings, most of the time their is a dramatic drop in hour three which brings down the overall ratings significantly. Couldn't this be a sign that the three hour Raw is not working and could it lead thee WWE (or USA) reverting back to two hours eventually. 

“Working” depends on what you are looking for.  From the view you mention, absolutely.  But from USA’s perspective, they wanted the third hour and to them, it’s a better number than anything else they can put there so as of now, they are happy with it.  They would love the third hour to be higher, but they are still happy.  If they went to WWE and asked to drop the third hour, I think WWE would say THANK GOD!

Also, do you think that it just has to do with the booking and that perhaps if it was better then more people would be invested for the three hours or is three hours just too long.

Personally, I think two hours is the best length for the show.  I think three hours is too long.  Now, would more people watch if the booking was more entertaining to them?  Sure, I think so.  But three hours is too long.  It used to be the first hour suffered and now it’s the third.  It’s just a lot to watch.

I've been meticulously working my way through the entire attitude era on the network and there's one thing bugging me. Right after the Montreal screw job, on Raw, Vince does what appears to be a shoot interview about Bret. He says the door is open for him to return some day, but he has to realise Vince will never allow him to get the first punch again. Was this sowing early seeds of the uber-heel Mr McMahon, or did he genuinely believe he could take Bret in a real fight?

If memory serves, he said he wouldn’t let Bret hit him without firing back again.  I think Vince knows how tough Bret was.  I never took it to mean, “I can kick Bret Hart’s butt”.  I took it to mean, “I did him wrong so I let him have a free shot”.

Given that rumours are swirling that Taker isn't quite finished yet, what exactly was the point of Reigns destroying him? I could see the point if they turned Reigns heel as it got him nuclear heat. But he's still plodding along as this babyface who only appeals to kids, and he's lost what little goodwill he had with older fans. 

Vince had him beat Undertaker to continue to build on the Reigns character.  Remember, he doesn’t market to the older fans.  He has made that clear for years.  He markets to the people that understand and appreciate his vision of the what the business is.  Him turning Reigns heel after beating Taker would actually go against what Vince tries to do.

Gun to your head, if the decision was 100% up too him, do you think HHH still puts himself over Sting at Wrestlemania?  I know a lot has been said about his ego, but he’s proven with NXT and now 205 Live that he knows how to read the fans and give them what they want.  And NO ONE wanted him going over in that match.  So Vince’s call or Hunters call?

The finishes are always Vince’s call.  I think if Vince had said, “Paul, I want you to put over Sting so that we can build him up and get some more mileage out of him” HHH would have agreed with that call.

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!