Test

Scott,
There has been plenty of commentary on Survivor Series 1999, where Big Show subbed for the injured Steve Austin, and many thought Test would be the surprise replacement.  Do you think it would have been worth a Test WWF Title win in that scenario?  Even if it was to just set up the rematch and Stephanie turn the next month at Armageddon?

Given that they obviously wanted to continue pushing him in 2001, I’d say yeah, it was worth hotshotting the belt onto him instead of Big Show there.  That way you pay off his wedding betrayal, and it makes HHH & Steph look all the worse when he gets screwed over and loses the title back.  Plus hey, you never know if you’re gonna make a new star.  Obviously time went on and he didn’t really get any better, but we didn’t know that at the time.

Test

Scott,
There has been plenty of commentary on Survivor Series 1999, where Big Show subbed for the injured Steve Austin, and many thought Test would be the surprise replacement.  Do you think it would have been worth a Test WWF Title win in that scenario?  Even if it was to just set up the rematch and Stephanie turn the next month at Armageddon?

Given that they obviously wanted to continue pushing him in 2001, I’d say yeah, it was worth hotshotting the belt onto him instead of Big Show there.  That way you pay off his wedding betrayal, and it makes HHH & Steph look all the worse when he gets screwed over and loses the title back.  Plus hey, you never know if you’re gonna make a new star.  Obviously time went on and he didn’t really get any better, but we didn’t know that at the time.

Back To Benoit

Scott,
Before real-life events changed everything, what was the first point you realistically thought Chris Benoit could have become World Champion in a promotion?  He was of course an internet darling for years before he got any kind of legitimate push, but before his Wrestlemania XX win, do you think there was an earlier time he could have won the big one?  The 2000 feud with The Rock seemed like a candidate to me.  His return from injury in 2002 could have led to a HHH-Benoit World Title match at WM19 (in lieu of the HHH-Booker mess).

He should have won the title from Steve Austin in 2001, although subsequent injuries would have made that a disastrous choice on WWE’s part.  But still, they did the RAW and Smackdown tapings in Calgary/Edmonton with Benoit v. Austin on top both times, and he was at the point where he could have carried the belt for at least a couple of months.  By 2004, they were clearly moving onto the next wave of guys (Cena, Orton, etc) and there wasn’t going to be any wiggle room at the top for anyone other than someone to make younger guys into stars. 

Back To Benoit

Scott,
Before real-life events changed everything, what was the first point you realistically thought Chris Benoit could have become World Champion in a promotion?  He was of course an internet darling for years before he got any kind of legitimate push, but before his Wrestlemania XX win, do you think there was an earlier time he could have won the big one?  The 2000 feud with The Rock seemed like a candidate to me.  His return from injury in 2002 could have led to a HHH-Benoit World Title match at WM19 (in lieu of the HHH-Booker mess).

He should have won the title from Steve Austin in 2001, although subsequent injuries would have made that a disastrous choice on WWE’s part.  But still, they did the RAW and Smackdown tapings in Calgary/Edmonton with Benoit v. Austin on top both times, and he was at the point where he could have carried the belt for at least a couple of months.  By 2004, they were clearly moving onto the next wave of guys (Cena, Orton, etc) and there wasn’t going to be any wiggle room at the top for anyone other than someone to make younger guys into stars. 

Back To Benoit

Scott,
Before real-life events changed everything, what was the first point you realistically thought Chris Benoit could have become World Champion in a promotion?  He was of course an internet darling for years before he got any kind of legitimate push, but before his Wrestlemania XX win, do you think there was an earlier time he could have won the big one?  The 2000 feud with The Rock seemed like a candidate to me.  His return from injury in 2002 could have led to a HHH-Benoit World Title match at WM19 (in lieu of the HHH-Booker mess).

He should have won the title from Steve Austin in 2001, although subsequent injuries would have made that a disastrous choice on WWE’s part.  But still, they did the RAW and Smackdown tapings in Calgary/Edmonton with Benoit v. Austin on top both times, and he was at the point where he could have carried the belt for at least a couple of months.  By 2004, they were clearly moving onto the next wave of guys (Cena, Orton, etc) and there wasn’t going to be any wiggle room at the top for anyone other than someone to make younger guys into stars. 

Back To Benoit

Scott,
Before real-life events changed everything, what was the first point you realistically thought Chris Benoit could have become World Champion in a promotion?  He was of course an internet darling for years before he got any kind of legitimate push, but before his Wrestlemania XX win, do you think there was an earlier time he could have won the big one?  The 2000 feud with The Rock seemed like a candidate to me.  His return from injury in 2002 could have led to a HHH-Benoit World Title match at WM19 (in lieu of the HHH-Booker mess).

He should have won the title from Steve Austin in 2001, although subsequent injuries would have made that a disastrous choice on WWE’s part.  But still, they did the RAW and Smackdown tapings in Calgary/Edmonton with Benoit v. Austin on top both times, and he was at the point where he could have carried the belt for at least a couple of months.  By 2004, they were clearly moving onto the next wave of guys (Cena, Orton, etc) and there wasn’t going to be any wiggle room at the top for anyone other than someone to make younger guys into stars. 

In The Era Tonight…

Hey Scott, was thinking about this the other day and maybe it’s something you can post on your blog for discussion(considering many of your readers are in their early 20’s) I notice that a lot of today’s wrestling fans who are in their early to mid-twenties are the main group who boo John Cena.  They don’t like how he is shoved down our throats, they also don’t like how the PG era is shoved down their throats as well.  This got me thinking, that this particular group never really had a ‘wrestling era’ of their own. I am in my early thirties so I was lucky to have 2 era’s, the cartoonish Rock N’ Wrestling/Hulkamania era when I was 8, then the business grew with me and I got the Attitude Era when I was in my late teens and early 20’s.  You are older than me(not taking a shot at you) and you had the great territorial wrestling of Jim Crockett Promotions, AWA, World Class, Mid-South, early WCW and you also got to enjoy the Attitude era.  The New Generation era in 1995 and 1996 was kind of a limbo period for me. Skip ahead to now, the PG/John Cena era which is targeted to the little kids probably til age 15.  My point is that it seems that wrestling/WWE skipped a generation and people today who are in their early 20’s and late teens never got an era for themselves.  They weren’t born during the Hogan era, were too young to watch the Attitude era and now they are getting the PG era shoved down their throats.  From late 2001 to 2007, WWE kind of was in limbo in figuring out what they wanted their product to be.  We had the InVasion, Ruthless Aggression, Brand Extentions, but no era was defined.  Eventually they decided they wanted to target the younger kids, so they went PG and everyone who is in their early 20’s kind of missed out. I guess my question to you and your readers(especially those in their late teens and early 20’s) is do you feel almost cheated that you didn’t get an ‘era’ to call your own?   Does that in turn make you hate today’s PG product even more and want to boo the top star?  Most people boo Cena because they want him to be the edgy Cena that he was in 2003-2004(an Attitude era character).  I don’t mind Cena, I figure since I had Hogan/Warrior and then Rock/Austin to cheer, I let today’s younger kids enjoy their ‘Hulk Hogan’ so I just cheer him too.  I also think wrestling is a cycle and their will be another ‘Attitude type era’ that will be targeted towards these same young kids.  It will start when these kids grow up and get tired of Cena(like I did with Hogan)  Then WWE will turn Cena and it should be as big as Hogan’s turn in 1996.  But that’s a discussion for another day.

Wrestling is not necessarily cyclical, and trying to reproduce past “eras” of the past in hoping for the same returns is the same kind of thinking that led to Vince Russo’s WCW tenure.  That being said, I wouldn’t generally say I’m booing or cheering Cena, I’m more just indifferent to his act and waiting for something else to come along on top.  For instance, I’d call myself an active fan of Ziggler, Ryder and CM Punk at the moment, and I would go to a live show and happily boo Mark Henry, but Cena just doesn’t inspire much reaction in me one way or the other. 

In The Era Tonight…

Hey Scott, was thinking about this the other day and maybe it’s something you can post on your blog for discussion(considering many of your readers are in their early 20’s) I notice that a lot of today’s wrestling fans who are in their early to mid-twenties are the main group who boo John Cena.  They don’t like how he is shoved down our throats, they also don’t like how the PG era is shoved down their throats as well.  This got me thinking, that this particular group never really had a ‘wrestling era’ of their own. I am in my early thirties so I was lucky to have 2 era’s, the cartoonish Rock N’ Wrestling/Hulkamania era when I was 8, then the business grew with me and I got the Attitude Era when I was in my late teens and early 20’s.  You are older than me(not taking a shot at you) and you had the great territorial wrestling of Jim Crockett Promotions, AWA, World Class, Mid-South, early WCW and you also got to enjoy the Attitude era.  The New Generation era in 1995 and 1996 was kind of a limbo period for me. Skip ahead to now, the PG/John Cena era which is targeted to the little kids probably til age 15.  My point is that it seems that wrestling/WWE skipped a generation and people today who are in their early 20’s and late teens never got an era for themselves.  They weren’t born during the Hogan era, were too young to watch the Attitude era and now they are getting the PG era shoved down their throats.  From late 2001 to 2007, WWE kind of was in limbo in figuring out what they wanted their product to be.  We had the InVasion, Ruthless Aggression, Brand Extentions, but no era was defined.  Eventually they decided they wanted to target the younger kids, so they went PG and everyone who is in their early 20’s kind of missed out. I guess my question to you and your readers(especially those in their late teens and early 20’s) is do you feel almost cheated that you didn’t get an ‘era’ to call your own?   Does that in turn make you hate today’s PG product even more and want to boo the top star?  Most people boo Cena because they want him to be the edgy Cena that he was in 2003-2004(an Attitude era character).  I don’t mind Cena, I figure since I had Hogan/Warrior and then Rock/Austin to cheer, I let today’s younger kids enjoy their ‘Hulk Hogan’ so I just cheer him too.  I also think wrestling is a cycle and their will be another ‘Attitude type era’ that will be targeted towards these same young kids.  It will start when these kids grow up and get tired of Cena(like I did with Hogan)  Then WWE will turn Cena and it should be as big as Hogan’s turn in 1996.  But that’s a discussion for another day.

Wrestling is not necessarily cyclical, and trying to reproduce past “eras” of the past in hoping for the same returns is the same kind of thinking that led to Vince Russo’s WCW tenure.  That being said, I wouldn’t generally say I’m booing or cheering Cena, I’m more just indifferent to his act and waiting for something else to come along on top.  For instance, I’d call myself an active fan of Ziggler, Ryder and CM Punk at the moment, and I would go to a live show and happily boo Mark Henry, but Cena just doesn’t inspire much reaction in me one way or the other. 

In The Era Tonight…

Hey Scott, was thinking about this the other day and maybe it’s something you can post on your blog for discussion(considering many of your readers are in their early 20’s) I notice that a lot of today’s wrestling fans who are in their early to mid-twenties are the main group who boo John Cena.  They don’t like how he is shoved down our throats, they also don’t like how the PG era is shoved down their throats as well.  This got me thinking, that this particular group never really had a ‘wrestling era’ of their own. I am in my early thirties so I was lucky to have 2 era’s, the cartoonish Rock N’ Wrestling/Hulkamania era when I was 8, then the business grew with me and I got the Attitude Era when I was in my late teens and early 20’s.  You are older than me(not taking a shot at you) and you had the great territorial wrestling of Jim Crockett Promotions, AWA, World Class, Mid-South, early WCW and you also got to enjoy the Attitude era.  The New Generation era in 1995 and 1996 was kind of a limbo period for me. Skip ahead to now, the PG/John Cena era which is targeted to the little kids probably til age 15.  My point is that it seems that wrestling/WWE skipped a generation and people today who are in their early 20’s and late teens never got an era for themselves.  They weren’t born during the Hogan era, were too young to watch the Attitude era and now they are getting the PG era shoved down their throats.  From late 2001 to 2007, WWE kind of was in limbo in figuring out what they wanted their product to be.  We had the InVasion, Ruthless Aggression, Brand Extentions, but no era was defined.  Eventually they decided they wanted to target the younger kids, so they went PG and everyone who is in their early 20’s kind of missed out. I guess my question to you and your readers(especially those in their late teens and early 20’s) is do you feel almost cheated that you didn’t get an ‘era’ to call your own?   Does that in turn make you hate today’s PG product even more and want to boo the top star?  Most people boo Cena because they want him to be the edgy Cena that he was in 2003-2004(an Attitude era character).  I don’t mind Cena, I figure since I had Hogan/Warrior and then Rock/Austin to cheer, I let today’s younger kids enjoy their ‘Hulk Hogan’ so I just cheer him too.  I also think wrestling is a cycle and their will be another ‘Attitude type era’ that will be targeted towards these same young kids.  It will start when these kids grow up and get tired of Cena(like I did with Hogan)  Then WWE will turn Cena and it should be as big as Hogan’s turn in 1996.  But that’s a discussion for another day.

Wrestling is not necessarily cyclical, and trying to reproduce past “eras” of the past in hoping for the same returns is the same kind of thinking that led to Vince Russo’s WCW tenure.  That being said, I wouldn’t generally say I’m booing or cheering Cena, I’m more just indifferent to his act and waiting for something else to come along on top.  For instance, I’d call myself an active fan of Ziggler, Ryder and CM Punk at the moment, and I would go to a live show and happily boo Mark Henry, but Cena just doesn’t inspire much reaction in me one way or the other. 

In The Era Tonight…

Hey Scott, was thinking about this the other day and maybe it’s something you can post on your blog for discussion(considering many of your readers are in their early 20’s) I notice that a lot of today’s wrestling fans who are in their early to mid-twenties are the main group who boo John Cena.  They don’t like how he is shoved down our throats, they also don’t like how the PG era is shoved down their throats as well.  This got me thinking, that this particular group never really had a ‘wrestling era’ of their own. I am in my early thirties so I was lucky to have 2 era’s, the cartoonish Rock N’ Wrestling/Hulkamania era when I was 8, then the business grew with me and I got the Attitude Era when I was in my late teens and early 20’s.  You are older than me(not taking a shot at you) and you had the great territorial wrestling of Jim Crockett Promotions, AWA, World Class, Mid-South, early WCW and you also got to enjoy the Attitude era.  The New Generation era in 1995 and 1996 was kind of a limbo period for me. Skip ahead to now, the PG/John Cena era which is targeted to the little kids probably til age 15.  My point is that it seems that wrestling/WWE skipped a generation and people today who are in their early 20’s and late teens never got an era for themselves.  They weren’t born during the Hogan era, were too young to watch the Attitude era and now they are getting the PG era shoved down their throats.  From late 2001 to 2007, WWE kind of was in limbo in figuring out what they wanted their product to be.  We had the InVasion, Ruthless Aggression, Brand Extentions, but no era was defined.  Eventually they decided they wanted to target the younger kids, so they went PG and everyone who is in their early 20’s kind of missed out. I guess my question to you and your readers(especially those in their late teens and early 20’s) is do you feel almost cheated that you didn’t get an ‘era’ to call your own?   Does that in turn make you hate today’s PG product even more and want to boo the top star?  Most people boo Cena because they want him to be the edgy Cena that he was in 2003-2004(an Attitude era character).  I don’t mind Cena, I figure since I had Hogan/Warrior and then Rock/Austin to cheer, I let today’s younger kids enjoy their ‘Hulk Hogan’ so I just cheer him too.  I also think wrestling is a cycle and their will be another ‘Attitude type era’ that will be targeted towards these same young kids.  It will start when these kids grow up and get tired of Cena(like I did with Hogan)  Then WWE will turn Cena and it should be as big as Hogan’s turn in 1996.  But that’s a discussion for another day.

Wrestling is not necessarily cyclical, and trying to reproduce past “eras” of the past in hoping for the same returns is the same kind of thinking that led to Vince Russo’s WCW tenure.  That being said, I wouldn’t generally say I’m booing or cheering Cena, I’m more just indifferent to his act and waiting for something else to come along on top.  For instance, I’d call myself an active fan of Ziggler, Ryder and CM Punk at the moment, and I would go to a live show and happily boo Mark Henry, but Cena just doesn’t inspire much reaction in me one way or the other. 

TLC Predictions

I’m sure this blog is gonna be dead as fuck for the next couple of weeks anyway, but just for fun here’s the TLC Prediction thread if you’re one of the 60-70K people who will be ordering this show.  I’m working, shucks. WWE title:  Punk climbs the ladder or pins Del Rio or whatever has to be done to win the match and retain the title.  I have no idea where they’re going with Punk into Royal Rumble unless it’s REMATCH TIME with The Miz.  World title:  Mark Henry FINALLY puts Big Show away for good, and you’d think this is where Sheamus finally gets a program again as a result. US title:  Zack Ryder pays off the chase and wins the belt from Ziggler, which hopefully means that Zig is getting put into a three-way with Miz and Punk at the Rumble to try and elevate him.  Dark horse prediction:  He wins the Rumble itself.  Either way, it’s time to move him up, he’s outgrown this role. IC title:  Cody Rhodes beats Booker T to retain.  Why does Ryder have to jump through hoops for months and Booker just gets a title shot?  I dunno. Ladder match:  Well, HHH wouldn’t do the fucking job for Punk, the guy who they were banking on in the fall and grooming for a WWE title run at Survivor Series, so I don’t see him doing one here.  Plus he’s the only guy who climb the ladder, and that’s a shoot, brutha.  Tables match:  Does anyone give a shit about Wade Barrett yet?  No?  Then he goes over until you DO.  I think that’s everything.  If they add a Kane-Cena match on WWE.com or something, expect Cena to win and unmask him again.

TLC Predictions

I’m sure this blog is gonna be dead as fuck for the next couple of weeks anyway, but just for fun here’s the TLC Prediction thread if you’re one of the 60-70K people who will be ordering this show.  I’m working, shucks. WWE title:  Punk climbs the ladder or pins Del Rio or whatever has to be done to win the match and retain the title.  I have no idea where they’re going with Punk into Royal Rumble unless it’s REMATCH TIME with The Miz.  World title:  Mark Henry FINALLY puts Big Show away for good, and you’d think this is where Sheamus finally gets a program again as a result. US title:  Zack Ryder pays off the chase and wins the belt from Ziggler, which hopefully means that Zig is getting put into a three-way with Miz and Punk at the Rumble to try and elevate him.  Dark horse prediction:  He wins the Rumble itself.  Either way, it’s time to move him up, he’s outgrown this role. IC title:  Cody Rhodes beats Booker T to retain.  Why does Ryder have to jump through hoops for months and Booker just gets a title shot?  I dunno. Ladder match:  Well, HHH wouldn’t do the fucking job for Punk, the guy who they were banking on in the fall and grooming for a WWE title run at Survivor Series, so I don’t see him doing one here.  Plus he’s the only guy who climb the ladder, and that’s a shoot, brutha.  Tables match:  Does anyone give a shit about Wade Barrett yet?  No?  Then he goes over until you DO.  I think that’s everything.  If they add a Kane-Cena match on WWE.com or something, expect Cena to win and unmask him again.

TLC Predictions

I’m sure this blog is gonna be dead as fuck for the next couple of weeks anyway, but just for fun here’s the TLC Prediction thread if you’re one of the 60-70K people who will be ordering this show.  I’m working, shucks. WWE title:  Punk climbs the ladder or pins Del Rio or whatever has to be done to win the match and retain the title.  I have no idea where they’re going with Punk into Royal Rumble unless it’s REMATCH TIME with The Miz.  World title:  Mark Henry FINALLY puts Big Show away for good, and you’d think this is where Sheamus finally gets a program again as a result. US title:  Zack Ryder pays off the chase and wins the belt from Ziggler, which hopefully means that Zig is getting put into a three-way with Miz and Punk at the Rumble to try and elevate him.  Dark horse prediction:  He wins the Rumble itself.  Either way, it’s time to move him up, he’s outgrown this role. IC title:  Cody Rhodes beats Booker T to retain.  Why does Ryder have to jump through hoops for months and Booker just gets a title shot?  I dunno. Ladder match:  Well, HHH wouldn’t do the fucking job for Punk, the guy who they were banking on in the fall and grooming for a WWE title run at Survivor Series, so I don’t see him doing one here.  Plus he’s the only guy who climb the ladder, and that’s a shoot, brutha.  Tables match:  Does anyone give a shit about Wade Barrett yet?  No?  Then he goes over until you DO.  I think that’s everything.  If they add a Kane-Cena match on WWE.com or something, expect Cena to win and unmask him again.

TLC Predictions

I’m sure this blog is gonna be dead as fuck for the next couple of weeks anyway, but just for fun here’s the TLC Prediction thread if you’re one of the 60-70K people who will be ordering this show.  I’m working, shucks. WWE title:  Punk climbs the ladder or pins Del Rio or whatever has to be done to win the match and retain the title.  I have no idea where they’re going with Punk into Royal Rumble unless it’s REMATCH TIME with The Miz.  World title:  Mark Henry FINALLY puts Big Show away for good, and you’d think this is where Sheamus finally gets a program again as a result. US title:  Zack Ryder pays off the chase and wins the belt from Ziggler, which hopefully means that Zig is getting put into a three-way with Miz and Punk at the Rumble to try and elevate him.  Dark horse prediction:  He wins the Rumble itself.  Either way, it’s time to move him up, he’s outgrown this role. IC title:  Cody Rhodes beats Booker T to retain.  Why does Ryder have to jump through hoops for months and Booker just gets a title shot?  I dunno. Ladder match:  Well, HHH wouldn’t do the fucking job for Punk, the guy who they were banking on in the fall and grooming for a WWE title run at Survivor Series, so I don’t see him doing one here.  Plus he’s the only guy who climb the ladder, and that’s a shoot, brutha.  Tables match:  Does anyone give a shit about Wade Barrett yet?  No?  Then he goes over until you DO.  I think that’s everything.  If they add a Kane-Cena match on WWE.com or something, expect Cena to win and unmask him again.

Randomness

Hey Scott, Long time blog reader. I have two questions I feel like you will have good answers to: 1- Mick Foley’s latest run in WWE isn’t exactly lighting the business on fire: He basically was used as comedic device in the “this is your life” segment with John Cena. And then last week he presented an award at the Slamy’s. I remember when I was young and started watching WWF in the mid 80s and Bruno Sammartino was still around it mattered nothing to me as a new fan. I think the same thing might be happening when guys like Mick Foley and Bret Hart come back once in awhile on Raw, especially outside their home towns. What do you think is the best way to use their name value if they can’t wrestle anymore, is it even worth having them around? 2- What would be the harm of just going back to one world title, one IC title and one set of tag titles? It would create so much more drama in the chase to those titles and be all the more meaningful when ONE person at a time holds the belt. They don’t have that huge a roster anymore either. Are they just that stubborn in not wanting to admit the brand split and multiple titles is a waste of time? Shouldn’t the PPV numbers be all the proof they need?

1.  I don’t really know what Foley’s endgame is.  He’s set for life and doesn’t need to wrestle anymore for financial reasons, so maybe he wants to help new people get over?  But really, I don’t know that there’s much more Mick can offer on that front.  I don’t know, I feel like he should have just stepped away gracefully and left it at that.  I really liked his commentary stint, but we know that he hated it due to Vince yelling in his ear so there’s little chance of him going back to that again.  I had thought that he might be going back to the Commissionary Position and ousting Johnny Ace from the GM job, but every day that Ace is still on TV seems to contradict that viewpoint.  Other than that, I don’t know why they even bothered to bring him back, to be honest.  They don’t need him and he doesn’t need them, unless he wants to host Vintage Classics or get involved with the WWE Network in some form.  2.  They are indeed just that stubborn.  Both World champions wrestle on both shows, but they still think they need multiple title matches on PPV.  And the PPV numbers are “proof” that the PPV concept is dying and the economy is bad and a million other excuses, but everything they do is perfect and not at all at fault. 

Randomness

Hey Scott, Long time blog reader. I have two questions I feel like you will have good answers to: 1- Mick Foley’s latest run in WWE isn’t exactly lighting the business on fire: He basically was used as comedic device in the “this is your life” segment with John Cena. And then last week he presented an award at the Slamy’s. I remember when I was young and started watching WWF in the mid 80s and Bruno Sammartino was still around it mattered nothing to me as a new fan. I think the same thing might be happening when guys like Mick Foley and Bret Hart come back once in awhile on Raw, especially outside their home towns. What do you think is the best way to use their name value if they can’t wrestle anymore, is it even worth having them around? 2- What would be the harm of just going back to one world title, one IC title and one set of tag titles? It would create so much more drama in the chase to those titles and be all the more meaningful when ONE person at a time holds the belt. They don’t have that huge a roster anymore either. Are they just that stubborn in not wanting to admit the brand split and multiple titles is a waste of time? Shouldn’t the PPV numbers be all the proof they need?

1.  I don’t really know what Foley’s endgame is.  He’s set for life and doesn’t need to wrestle anymore for financial reasons, so maybe he wants to help new people get over?  But really, I don’t know that there’s much more Mick can offer on that front.  I don’t know, I feel like he should have just stepped away gracefully and left it at that.  I really liked his commentary stint, but we know that he hated it due to Vince yelling in his ear so there’s little chance of him going back to that again.  I had thought that he might be going back to the Commissionary Position and ousting Johnny Ace from the GM job, but every day that Ace is still on TV seems to contradict that viewpoint.  Other than that, I don’t know why they even bothered to bring him back, to be honest.  They don’t need him and he doesn’t need them, unless he wants to host Vintage Classics or get involved with the WWE Network in some form.  2.  They are indeed just that stubborn.  Both World champions wrestle on both shows, but they still think they need multiple title matches on PPV.  And the PPV numbers are “proof” that the PPV concept is dying and the economy is bad and a million other excuses, but everything they do is perfect and not at all at fault. 

Randomness

Hey Scott, Long time blog reader. I have two questions I feel like you will have good answers to: 1- Mick Foley’s latest run in WWE isn’t exactly lighting the business on fire: He basically was used as comedic device in the “this is your life” segment with John Cena. And then last week he presented an award at the Slamy’s. I remember when I was young and started watching WWF in the mid 80s and Bruno Sammartino was still around it mattered nothing to me as a new fan. I think the same thing might be happening when guys like Mick Foley and Bret Hart come back once in awhile on Raw, especially outside their home towns. What do you think is the best way to use their name value if they can’t wrestle anymore, is it even worth having them around? 2- What would be the harm of just going back to one world title, one IC title and one set of tag titles? It would create so much more drama in the chase to those titles and be all the more meaningful when ONE person at a time holds the belt. They don’t have that huge a roster anymore either. Are they just that stubborn in not wanting to admit the brand split and multiple titles is a waste of time? Shouldn’t the PPV numbers be all the proof they need?

1.  I don’t really know what Foley’s endgame is.  He’s set for life and doesn’t need to wrestle anymore for financial reasons, so maybe he wants to help new people get over?  But really, I don’t know that there’s much more Mick can offer on that front.  I don’t know, I feel like he should have just stepped away gracefully and left it at that.  I really liked his commentary stint, but we know that he hated it due to Vince yelling in his ear so there’s little chance of him going back to that again.  I had thought that he might be going back to the Commissionary Position and ousting Johnny Ace from the GM job, but every day that Ace is still on TV seems to contradict that viewpoint.  Other than that, I don’t know why they even bothered to bring him back, to be honest.  They don’t need him and he doesn’t need them, unless he wants to host Vintage Classics or get involved with the WWE Network in some form.  2.  They are indeed just that stubborn.  Both World champions wrestle on both shows, but they still think they need multiple title matches on PPV.  And the PPV numbers are “proof” that the PPV concept is dying and the economy is bad and a million other excuses, but everything they do is perfect and not at all at fault.