In the land of the bland, any nostalgia act is king…

Hi Scott,

I’m a long-time lurker and reader who also hails from that subarctic arsehole called Edmonton (but I hear you escaped).

So, rumours were that The Undertaker was going to face Yawn Blowman at WrestleMania and many people thought that was a terrible idea, not only due to Slowman being Khali-esque in the ring but also because he’s not an established main event threat. So WWE changes his opponent to a non-wrestler who is a 46 year-old white collar worker and looks 60. Is it just because Shane is someone who was over when the product was popular and Batista wants too much money?

Then we were going to get Brock Lesnar vs Bray Wyatt, but nobody bought Bray as a threat to a guy who hadn’t been pinned or submitted in three years and squashed Taker and Cena – both of whom have pinned Bray clean. So who does Brock get as an opponent instead? Ambrose – the one non-jobber who gets pinned more than Bray. Also, I love how even though Ambrose isn’t short like Daniel Bryan or skinny like CM Punk, he’s still buried for being too small. Or does WWE just punish everyone who is over with the crowd, under 40, and not a part-timer? That might explain the sad career trajectories of Ziggler, Owens, Sandow, and Zack Ryder…


​To be fair, I "escaped" to Saskatoon, so it wasn’t much of an upgrade on the weather front.

I really really don’t get the Shane thing, aside from your wacky theory that Shane was popular when the product was big and he’s a name. But this is some high-level Russo-style desperation going on here. What does Undertaker get out of this? Did anyone ASK him? Does it seem like he’d particularly give a shit about Vince losing his company? Why do we need another Hell in a Cell match already?

I do like the Ambrose direction at least. It’s kind of the David v. Goliath dream match that people were wanting to see with Daniel Bryan, although Brock jobbing would be a complete waste of time so I guess Dean lays down yet again.