PWInsider - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE



By Dave Scherer on 2013-02-06 09:59:00

You can send us questions for the Q&A by clicking here.

Why is everyone sooo upset about the Rock winning the WWE championship?  It's going to bring a lot of publicity to WWE in the time before WM 29. And yes I get that he ruined the run but I think it is worth it.

There are two main reasons.  One, as you mentioned, is that he ended Punk's reign.  The other is people think it's wrong to part the title on a part timer.  I am with you though.  It brings notoriety, and viewers, to WWE at the most important time of the year.

Everyone agrees that David Arquette winning the WCW title was as big a hole, if not bigger than the Fingerpoke of Doom was. But my question is the movie that set that scenario up... did Ready to Rumble actually make the company any money??

According to Box Office Mojo, it actually grossed over 12 million dollars believe it or not! But the budget was twice that.

In the Q&A last Monday, it was mentioned that The Rock doesn't have to dumb down his act when he's sparring with CM Punk. Now... as much as I like Rock, I've been disappointed that, in all the time he's been gone, he hasn't seemed to think of anything more interesting to say than his usual arsenal of gay/crotch/fat/denigration of women jokes. Even Punk had a throwaway line on Monday night that "it's cool to swear" when Rock called him a "Punk a-- b----." Whereas Punk always sounds like he means what he says, Rock continues to subscribe to the theory that you won't go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator. I mean, he used the one shot at a Manti T'eo joke to mention Punk's nether regions instead of at least going after Little Jimmy. The guy's 40 years old. Doesn't he have anything more clever than "Twinkie Tits"?

He is what he is, there is that element to his character.  Punk is a more serious character and it comes across in his promos.  Hey, Rock is 40.  Vince McMahon is almost 70 and he still appeals to the lowest common denominator. 

It is obvious that Brock's F5 on VM was the angle to bring HHH back to challenge him. I think it would be cool though if "evidence" turns up showing that it was Brock who put the Rock thru a table during the Rock/Punk royal rumble match and not the Shield. That would then bring up a lot of issues. 1- Paul Heyman could not be fired as the Shield was not involved. 2- It could also be argued that since the Shield were not involved, the match should not have been restarted. Rock would be stripped of the belt, and it would be given back to Punk. Then there would be a rematch for the belt.

They COULD do all of that but I tend to think they won't.  Brock is here to take on HHH.  That is what I see happening.

I thought this was weird.  I was watching the UFC pay per view yesterday and before the main event they showed a preview of WWE studios "Dead Man Down". I know in the past that there has been commercials for UFC during Raw but not showing a preview of a UFC product before a main event on a pay per view. Could you ever see Vince McMahon having Jim Ross throw to a preview of a UFC product on a WWE show? Even though it was not a wrestling product that was being advertised, it was still a WWE movie and was surprised to see the UFC advertising it on a big pay per view. Your thoughts?

Since Jim Ross doesn't call matches any more, no I don't see that but I could see down the road that WWE would work something out with UFC to promote each other on PPVs.  After all, if they were to promote UFC during the Elimination Chamber, the fans would have already bought the show.  I could see something like that happening at some point.

You can send us questions for the Q&A by clicking here.

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!