PWInsider - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE



By Dave Scherer on 2020-11-01 10:00:00

You can send us questions for the Q and A at

Why doesn't WWE make the Survivor Series annual "Brand Warfare" storyline more important by saying the winning brand gets the coveted main event spot at Wrestlemania 37? Or, whoever becomes the sole survivors that lead their respective brands to glory, earn WWE or Universal title matches, as a cool reward? These options have many benefits. First, WWE can extend the Wrestlemania season two months to November. Second, Survivor Series becomes more important as a "Big 4 PPV", rather than an all-star - though pointless - exhibition PPV that has no long term ramifications. Lastly, it gives a storyline motivation for faces, heels, and rivals on the same brand to work together for a common, self-interested goal. Otherwise, with no stakes like a Wrestlemania main event or a title shot on the line, who cares? In an era of undefined brands and with wrestlers constantly appearing on the "rival" brand with no real reason or consequence, nobody buys these wrestlers care about "brand loyalty" or "brand supremacy"? Thus, this lack of logic or character motivation makes me care less as a viewer of Survivor Series. Your thoughts?

I like the idea of the Mania main event for the winning brand being on the line but I am sure Vince doesn’t want to pigeonhole himself like that.  I totally agree with you, the concept now is ridiculous, especially a few weeks after talents switched brands.  There is no brand loyalty, but we are all of the sudden supposed to believe that there is and talents care about it.  It's ridiculous.

What's a worse stable? Retribution or Aces & Eights?

Retribution, and it's not even close.  At least Aces & 8s won matches, and they got those super cool cuts too.

Do you think NXT Halloween Havoc should have been a takeover on Saturday Night (actually on Halloween) rather than on Wednesday Night? I’m aware WCWs Halloween Havoc wasn’t ever on Halloween and probably why Halloween Havoc was on Wednesday Night rather than on Saturday Night.

No, I don’t.  I like the idea of making it a TV special given the holiday themed nature of the show.  That isn’t what Takeovers are.  Plus, it was a great way to see if doing a special themed show could increase the viewership of the TV show, which it did.

Kevin Nash constantly advocating that big men should always work the same slow, lumbering, no-sell style in their matches makes me nauseous. Part of what got Vader really over was his 2nd rope corner splash, Superfly Splash, and his impressive Vader-sault off the top rope. Vader was doing more than the ordinary powerbombs and powerslams that men of his size always do. If the Big Show can do a 450 Splash off the top, he should do it! A giant or big man doing cruiserweight moves would be impressive and challenge the same, recycled storytelling tropes utilized - when it comes to booking "big men" matches. Shouldn't big men more work a more athletic - even cruiserweight style - if they are blessed with such ability? Would it not separate such athletic big men from the pack to use high flying moves in their repertoire?

It all depends on how you look at it.  Honestly, I side more with Nash than you.  I love Luchasaurus but it always bugs me when he does flying stuff against smaller guys.  A man that is significantly bigger than his opponent would pound the snot out of him in a real fight and to me, that is what should happen in a wrestling match.  That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t do big spots, he should just do fewer of them and when he needs them to win, not just in transition.  Now, if he is wrestling a guy his size, like Brian Cage, then sure, pull out the flying because it’s something you need against a guy your own size.  But if you are 6’6” and wrestling a guy that is a lean 5’8” I agree with Nash.  Plus, the fewer high spots the big guy does, the less wear and tear on his body, which usually means the more money he will earn.

I have always felt Survivor Series has been underused as a "grand slam" type event - where new superstars are elevated to the main event scene - similar to other PPV events that host multi-man matches for world title shots - such as, Royal Rumble, Money in the Bank, and Elimination Chamber. Why did WWE only stage a final elimination "Grand Finale Match", where all the sole survivors of earlier Survivor Series matches competed in a final elimination match against each other, one time in 1990? I loved that concept! Imagine if the winners of all the team survival matches came back to compete in a multi-man elimination match for a world title shot at Royal Rumble? The victor would be a newly minted, credible main eventer!! Furthermore, you can have believable upsets occur to get midcarders over. Also, this can elevate superstars through endurance runs or mass eliminations of competitors, while developing new rivalries based on outcomes of earlier Survivor Series matches. Couldn't a simple reboot of the Survivor Series format - not only elevate much needed new superstars - but also its own relevance on the PPV calendar?

Maybe they would, maybe they would be like Otis winning Money In The Bank.  Good booking is really how you make new stars and without that, it really doesn’t matter what kind of bells and whistles they use.  Survivor Series is a throwaway due to the booking leading up to it.

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 by clicking here!

Use our reports with online gambling where you can play casino games or bet on different kind of sports!