Why didn't WWE throw out the Hell in a Cell decision of CM Punk over Ryback, to keep Ryback's undefeated streak intact? They could have easily done it saying there was a tainted referee then at the Survivor Series, Ryback doesn't really lose the triple threat match or get pinned, so they could still keep the fact he hasn't been pinned or submitted still going.
I don't really see the point in this. Either build Ryback as an undefeated monster or don't. The entire thing has been very poorly executed. WWE pushes him hard yet refuses to let him go over in a legitimate match after being built for months as the undefeated superstar in squash matches. This doesn't mean I'm a big fan of Ryback either; he's got a good look but I haven't seen enough to form an opinion. If he was going to be booked against Punk then he had to go over. If not, the entire gimmick has been a waste of time. WWE figured out a way to keep it going and so far it hasn't backfired but it doesn't change the fact it's poor booking.
It's been occasionally mentioned on-air that winning a championship (in WWE) means the champion gets paid more money while he's the champion. Do champions really get paid more or is this just part of the story?
All title reigns are scripted just like everything else, however, champions usually do make more money because they sell more merchandise and are featured more prominently than those lower on the card. There is not some type of "championship clause" in a contract that stipulates someone is to be paid more if they have a title reign. Pro wrestling is a lot like a soap opera or movie, everything is scripted but the characters with feature roles make more money than those in supporting roles. This holds true with downside guarantees, bonuses and merchandise.
Do you think that John Cena will win Dolph Ziggler's MITB briefcase at WWE TLC meaning he might go back to the Smackdown main event?
I've said this before with his match against Chris Jericho at SummerSlam and WWE decided to put Ziggler under to Jericho only to put him over the next night, however, it's Dolph Ziggler's time. It's time for WWE to use this match as a "passing of the torch" and a way to get Ziggler some momentum before a legitimate main event run. If not, I don't see what the purpose was in having him win the Money in the Bank briefcase. It goes back to the Ryback mentality. Either push him or don't. It's mind boggling how WWE will show enough confidence in a mid card talent to prepare them for a main event run then pull back at the last moment. WWE needs stars now more than ever and continuously burying potential up and comers while relying on past names like The Rock and Brock Lesnar is no way to do business. They should utilize this time while they have these former headliners to build some more major stars to carry the company into the future. More and more I see WWE going for the "right now" instead of worrying about what's going to happen in five years. The drop-off in viewership should be enough to get the company's attention but so far it's been more of the same.
Could CM Punk lose the WWE Championship because of his knee injury? Is the injury even legitimate?
Anything is possible but right now there are no plans to take the WWE Championship off CM Punk. Vince McMahon wants to do The Rock vs. Punk for the title at Royal Rumble so they wanted to make sure Punk is healthy. So to answer the second part of your question, yes the injury is legitimate and the thinking was it was better to do the scope now and give him time to rest rather than risk a major injury before the pay-per-view next year. Should Punk not be able to work next month there is a contingency plan that we revealed here. In this article we also explain Vince McMahon's conversation with Punk about not working WWE TLC.
Remember questions with proper grammar and spelling stand the best chance of getting answered. The next installment of Ask WNW will run on Friday, December 7, 2012.
Check out the Ask WNW archive at this link.
Submit questions to: [email protected]!